Safety of Anteromedial Portals in Elbow Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies


      To systematically review available literature comparing location and safety of 2 common anteromedial portals with nearby neurovascular structures in cadaveric models and to determine the correct positioning and preparation of the joint before elbow arthroscopy.


      The review was devised in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of original, cadaveric studies performed by experienced surgeons on male or female elbows evaluating anteromedial portal placement with regard to proximity of the arthroscope to neurovascular structures. Exclusion criteria consisted of case reports, clinical series, non–English language studies, and noncadaveric studies. Statistical analysis was done to measure reviewer reliability after scoring of each study.


      During screening, 2,596 studies were identified, and 10 studies met final inclusion as original, cadaveric investigations of anteromedial portal proximity to neurovascular structures. The difference in distance between proximal and distal portals was <1 mm for the brachial artery and <1.5 mm for the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve, whereas the ulnar nerve was 4.17 mm further from the distal portal and the median nerve was 5.07 mm further from the proximal portal. Joint distension increased the distances of neurovascular structures to portal sites, with the exception of the ulnar nerve in distal portals. Elbow flexion to 90° increased distances of all neurovascular structures to portal sites.


      The results show that the proximal anteromedial portal puts fewer structures at risk compared with the distal portal. Elbows in 90° flexion with joint distension carry a lower risk for neurovascular injury during portal placement. These findings suggest the proximal anteromedial portal to be the safer technique in anteromedial arthroscopy of the elbow.

      Clinical Relevance

      Discrepancies in placement of portals have existed in the literature, indicating differing safety margins regarding surrounding neurovascular anatomy. The present study aims to link together the literature-based evidence to describe the safest anteromedial portal variation.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Burman M.S.
        Arthroscopy or the direct visualization of joints: An experimental cadaver study. 1931.
        Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2001; 390: 5-9
        • Burman M.S.
        Arthroscopy of the elbow joint: A cadaver study.
        J Bone Joint Surg. 1932; 14: 349-350
        • Andrews J.R.
        • Carson W.G.
        Arthroscopy of the elbow.
        Arthroscopy. 1985; 2: 97-107
        • Lynch G.J.
        • Meyers J.F.
        • Whipple T.L.
        • Caspari R.B.
        Neurovascular anatomy and elbow arthroscopy: Inherent risks.
        Arthroscopy. 1986; 2: 190-197
        • Lindenfeld T.N.
        Medial approach in elbow arthroscopy.
        Am J Sports Med. 1990; 18: 413-417
        • Verhaar J.
        • Mameren H.V.
        • Brandsma A.
        Risks of neurovascular injury in elbow arthroscopy: Starting anteromedially or anterolaterally?.
        Arthroscopy. 1991; 7: 287-290
        • Adolfsson L.
        Arthroscopy of the elbow joint: A cadaveric study of portal placement.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994; 3: 53-61
        • Stothers K.
        • Day B.
        • Regan W.
        Arthroscopy of the elbow: Anatomy, portal sites, and a description of the proximal lateral portal.
        Arthroscopy. 1995; 11: 449-457
        • Unlu M.
        • Kesmezacar H.
        • Akgun I.
        • Ogut T.
        • Uzun I.
        Anatomic relationship between elbow arthroscopy portals and neurovascular structures in different elbow and forearm positions.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15: 457-462
        • Chaware P.N.
        • Santoshi J.A.
        • Pakhare A.P.
        • Rathinam B.A.
        Risk of nerve injury during arthroscopy portal placement in the elbow joint: A cadaveric study.
        Indian J Orthop. 2016; 50: 74-79
        • Zonno A.
        • Manuel J.
        • Merrell G.
        • Ramos P.
        • Akelman E.
        • DaSilva M.F.
        Arthroscopic technique for medial epicondylitis: Technique and safety analysis.
        Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 610-616
        • Marshall P.D.
        • Fairclough J.A.
        • Johnson S.R.
        • Evans E.J.
        Avoiding nerve damage during elbow arthroscopy.
        J Bone Joint Surg. 1993; 75: 129-131
        • Moher D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Clarke M.
        • et al.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic review and metaanalysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
        Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1
        • Kelly E.W.
        • Morrey B.F.
        • O’Driscoll S.W.
        Complications of elbow arthroscopy.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83: 25-34
        • Wilke J.
        • Krause F.
        • Niederer D.
        • Engeroff T.
        • Vogt L.
        • Banzer W.
        Appraising the quality of cadaveric studies. Validation of the QUACS scale.
        J Anat. 2015; 226: 440-446
        • Poehling G.G.
        • Whipple T.L.
        • Sisco L.
        • Goldman B.
        Elbow arthroscopy: A new technique.
        Arthroscopy. 1989; 5: 222-224
        • Miller C.D.
        • Jobe C.M.
        • Wright M.H.
        Neuroanatomy in elbow arthroscopy.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995; 4: 168-174
        • Hilgersom N.F.J.
        • van Deurzen D.F.P.
        • Gerritsma C.L.E.
        • van der Heide H.J.L.
        • Malessy M.J.A.
        • Eygendaal D.
        • van den Bekerom M.P.J.
        Nerve injuries do occur in elbow arthroscopy.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 26: 318-324
        • Dumonski M.L.
        • Arciero R.A.
        • Mazzocca A.D.
        Ulnar nerve palsy after elbow arthroscopy.
        Arthroscopy. 2006; 22 (e1-e3): 577
        • Carson W.
        Arthroscopy of the elbow.
        Instr Course Lect. 1988; 37: 195-201
        • Park S.E.
        • Bachman D.R.
        • O’Driscoll S.W.
        The safety of using proximal anteromedial portals in elbow arthroscopy with prior ulnar nerve transposition.
        Arthroscopy. 2016; 32: 1003-1009
        • Drescher H.
        • Schwering L.
        • Jerosch J.
        • Herzig M.
        The risk of neurovascular damage in elbow joint arthroscopy. Which approach is better: Anteromedial or anterolateral?.
        Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1994; 132 ([in German]): 120-125
        • Claessen F.
        • Kachooei A.R.
        • Kolovich G.P.
        • Buijze G.A.
        • Oh L.S.
        • van den Bekerom M.P.J.
        • Doornberg J.N.
        Portal placement in elbow arthroscopy by novice surgeons: Cadaver study.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25: 2247-2254

      Linked Article

      • Editorial Commentary: Safety in Anteromedial Elbow Portal Placement? Go North!
        ArthroscopyVol. 35Issue 7
        • Preview
          Since iatrogenic injury to surrounding structures is more likely in the elbow than in the other major joints, many studies have examined the relationship of elbow arthroscopy portals to the at-risk anatomy. In accessing the anterior compartment of the elbow from the medial side, the brachial artery and median, ulnar, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerves are at risk. Factors that improve the safety of this approach include the use of a proximal versus distal anteromedial portal, a distended versus and nondistended joint, and a flexed versus extended elbow position, all of which result in an approximate margin of safety of 2 cm from the deep at-risk structures.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF