Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive

Surgery

ISSN: 0036-5556 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iphs18

Entrapment of the Posterior Interosseous Nerve

Carl-GÖRan Hagert, GÖRan Lundborg & Terje Hansen

To cite this article: Carl-GÖRan Hagert, GÖRan Lundborg & Terje Hansen (1977) Entrapment
of the Posterior Interosseous Nerve, Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,
11:3, 205-212, DOI: 10.3109/02844317709025519

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3109/02844317709025519

Published online: 08 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33

View related articles

Citing articles: 41 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iphs18
 Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg I I : 205-212, 1977

ENTRAPMENT OF THE POSTERIOR INTEROSSEOUS NERVE

Carl-Goran Hagert, Goran Lundborg and Terje Hansen

From the Division of Hand Surgery (Heud: S . Edshage), Subdivision of the Department of Orthopaedic
Surgery 1. Sahlgrenska sjukhuset, Goteborg, und the Depurtrnent of Orthopuedic Surgery
(Head: G. Gudmundson), Karnsjukhuset, Skijvde, Streden

(Submitted for publication October 5 , 1977)

Absrract. 48 patients, 20 men and 28 women, were ex-
amined because of pain radially-proximallyin the forearm,
in 2 patients bilaterally. 31 patients, representing 32 el-
bows, had previously been treated for chronic lateral epi-
condylitis with local steroid injections, antiphlogistic
drugs, immobilization and/or surgery one or several times,
without any relief of the symptoms. The affected arm was
in 44 instances the most loaded one during work. The
duration of the symptoms varied from 6 months to about
10 years, on average 2 years. The main complaint was
pain at night, which was reported by 43 patients. Other
complaints were pain during work, radiating pain, numb-
ness, and weakness. The main preoperative findings were
intense local tenderness about 5 cm distal to the lateral
epicondyle, present in all 50 forearms, and indirect pain
induced by supination against resistance, present in 43
forearms. The complaints were interpreted as being
caused by entrapment of the posterior interosseous nerve
at its entrance into the supinator muscle. Decompression
of the nerve was performed in all instances. The length of
follow-up varied from about 2 months to 3 years, on
average 2 years. Results: excellent 33, good 9, fair 6 and
poor 2. The preoperative symptoms and findings are dis-
cussed, as well as the site and severity of nerve entrap-
ment and the main differential diagnosis: lateral epicon-
dylitis.
Entrapment of the posterior interosseous nerve
has been considered a rare condition. Mumenthaler
(1974) has reported this in only 11 out of 1574
cases of non-traumatic peripheral nerve lesions in
the upper and lower extremity, as compared with
709 cases of median nerve compression in the same
material. In the literature there are about 50 cases
reported in about 30 different articles from the
beginning of this century. Good reviews of the li-
terature have been presented by Marmor, Law-
rence & Dubois (1967), Goldman, Honet, Sobel &
Goldstein (1969) and Benini & DiMartino (1976).
In all these cases the entrapment of the posterior
interosseous nerve appeared clinically as an iso-
lated paralysis o r paresis of the muscles innervated
by the posterior interosseous nerve at or near the
level of its entrance into the supinator muscle, i.e.
all extensor muscles in the forearm except the
brachioradialis and extensor carpi radialis longus
and brevis muscles. Different causes to the nerve
compression have been reported such as pressure
from surrounding soft tissue tumours, mainly li-
pomas, o r pressure caused by an intraneural neuro-
fibroma. Other causes presented are rheumatoid
synovitis in the elbow joint and fibrous bands,
mainly at the level where the nerve enters the
supinator muscle.
However, entrapment of the posterior interos-
SeOUS nerve may not manifest itselfjust as a paresis
of the extensor muscles but even as forearm pain
Only without any weakness Of
portance. In 1959 Thompson & Kopell emphasized
that entrapment of this nerve produced a syndrome
common~y referred to as elbow'. 1960
Capener stated that tennis elbow was possibly due
to compression of the posterior interosseous nerve
as it passed between the parts of the supinator
brevis muscle and its aponeurosis. The most com-
prehensive study presented is that by Roles &
Maudsley (1972), comprising 38 nerve explorations
in 36 patients.
I n the present study 48 patients were subjected
to decompression of the posterior interosseous
nerve, the indication in all cases being forearm pain.
The material was collected by one of us, who ex-
amined and evaluated all patients preoperatively,
Supported by grants from the Swedish Medical Research
Council (05188), Trygg-Hansas Fond for Personskade-
forskning and Goteborgs Lakaresallskap.
206 C.-G. Hagert et ul.

Table I . The treatment previously given in 32 in- been incapable of carrying out their work for varying
stances of “resistant tennis elbow” periods of time, from some months up to 2 years.
Side localization. The pain was present in the right arm
Local steroid injection in 35 instances and in the left in 15. However, in 44
1 injection 8 instances the pain was located in that arm which, ac-
2 injections 6 cording to patient, was the most used one during work.
3 injections 4 Onset ofsyrnptorns. 6 patients reported an acute onset
>3 injections 12 of their symptoms following some excessive activity
Antiphlogistic drugs 7 during which the affected arm had been subjected to con-
Immobilization 7 siderable exertion and/or repetitive movements. Another
Ultra sound/short wave 2 2 patients referred the onset to a trauma-torsion violence
X-ray 1
or direct knock on the radial-proximal part of the forearm.
Surgery
muscle release (Hohmann), once 5 The remaining 40 patients reported an insidious onset
muscle release (Hohmann), twice 2 of the symptoms.
muscle release (Hohmann), twice Duration of symptoms. Duration of the symptoms
fdenervation (Wilhelm) 1 varied from 6 months to about 10 years (average about
2 years): in 32 instances from 6 months to 1 year; in 13
from 11 to 4 years, in 5 from 5 to 10 years.
Previous diagnoses. The 48 patients in the present
study were referred under the following diagnoses:
performed the operations and the postoperative Chronic lateral epicondylitis (refractory tennis elbow)
controls. In order to avoid any influence of the (3 1); myotendinitis (2); partial forearm muscle rupture
surgeon upon the patients at the follow-up ex- (1); writers cramp (1); carpal tunnel syndrome (I); sus-
picious osteoarthritis in the elbow joint (1); cervical
aminations, these were carried out by the two other rizopathy (2); radial tunnel syndrome (4); and forearm
authors, who then evaluated and classified the pain ( 5 ) .
results. One of the patients was referred as “resistant tennis
elbow” bilaterally, another patient as “resistant tennis
ANATOMY elbow” on one side and forearm pain without any further
diagnosis on the other side.
A comprehensive and detailed description of the pos-
In 28/32 “resistant tennis elbows” the dominant and/or
terior interosseous nerve and its relation to the surround-
most loaded arm during work was affected. None of the
ing structures has been presented by Spinner (1968; 1972).
patients reported any permanent relief of pain following
In the ventral-radial region of the elbow joint the radial
the treatment previously given (Table I).
nerve divides into one superficial, “sensory” branch and
Follow-up examination. 43/48 patients appeared per-
one deep, “motor” branch, the posterior interosseous
sonally, while 3 were interviewed per telephone. The
nerve. That branch passes between the superficial and the
remaining 2 patients (representing 3 nerve explorations)
deep heads of the supinator muscle. The proximal border
were not available for any examination or interview,
of the superficial head has a fibrous edge forming an
which is why the results presented here are based on the
arch, under which the nerve passes at the entrance into
notes from the last postoperative control 1 to 5 months
the supinator muscle. This arch is known as the arcade
after surgery. Length of follow-up varied from about 1
of Frohse, from its description by the German anatomist
month to 3 years, average 2 years (Table 11).
Frohse.
Spinner (1972) has carried out dissections of the radial
nerve in the elbow region in 50 adult arms. In 30% of
METHODS
the specimens he found the arcade to be sharp and ten-
dinous throughout the whole width, while in 70% the Preoperative examination. Examiner and patient were
medial half was membranous. In ten full-term newborns always placed on facing sides of the examination table.
Spinner was unable to demonstrate a sharp tendinous Local tenderness on the affected arm was always eval-
arcade in any of the specimens. uated in vis-a-vis the healthy arm. Supination against

MATERIAL Table 11. Length of follow-up of 50 posterior inter-

The material comprised 50 explorations of the posterior osseous nerve explorations
interosseous nerve in 48 patients: 20 men from 19 to 55
years of age, average 47.0 years; 28 women from 20 to 1-2 months 2
59 years of age, average 40.8 years. One man and one 3-5 months 8
woman were operated on bilaterally. 6-12 months 3
Occupation. All the patients were engaged in some -1.5 year 4
-2.0 years 3
kind of hard manual work or work, characterized by -2.5 years 19
repetitive movements. Different kinds of domestic work -3.0 years 11
and industrial work were represented. Most patients had

. k i n d J Plart Reconstr Surg I !


. 4 3 (Fig. 1). Skin suture, elastic bandage, no splint. The
Fig. 1 . Man age 52. (a) Schematic drawing of I, the pos-
terior interosseous nerve entering 2, the supinator muscle
under 3 , the fibrous arcade of Frohse. 4 , Line of incision effort, radiating pain, and numbness. 34 patients
when splitting the arcade of Frohse and the fascia of the
supinator muscle in order to decompress the nerve. ( b )
l o x . Posterior interosseous nerve at its entrance into the these patients had a definite feeling of a gradual
supinator muscle prior to division of the arcade of Frohse.
( c ) l o x . Following division of the arcade this was found of weakness together with impaired coordination in
to have given rise to an impression into two fascicles.
resistance was carried out in the following way: both
elbows were placed firmly on the table at about 45" of
flexion, forearms in maximum of supination; the patient
was asked to maintain that position while the examiner
tried to twist the forearms simultaneously into prona-
tion. Wrist joint and finger extension against resistance
was carried out simultaneously on both sides, the fore-
arms being firmly supported by the table.
Surgical technique. Surgery was carried out under
axillary block and bloodless field, tourniquet 75-100
mmHg above systolic blood pressure. The forearm was
positioned in semi-pronation and 60-80" flexion of the el-
Entrapment of the posterior interosseous nerve 207
bow. Straight incision of about 6-7 cm length from about
2 cm below the lateral epicondyle along the radial border
of the extensor carpi radialis longus muscle. Care was
taken not to damage the radial cutaneous antebrachi
nerve. Incision of the fascia and blunt dissection in the
natural interfascial space between the extensor carpi
radialis longus and brevis muscles, straight down to the
radial nerve. The superficial and deep branches were
identified. The deep branch, the posterior interosseous
nerve, was dissected free to about 2 to 3 cm proximal
to its entrance into the supinator muscle. Immediately
proximal to the entrance into the muscle the nerve is
crossed by a bundle of vessels, which were divided after
bipolar dithermi or ligature. The arcade of Frohse was
dissected free and incised together with the muscle fascia
to about 14 cm distally. Blunt separation of the muscle
fibres was performed by means of scissors, and the nerve
was dissected free about I to 14 cm into the muscle
patients were allowed to move the elbow immediately.
Stereomicroscopic observation (Zeiss Op Mi 11) of the
nerve prior to and wbsequent to incision of the arcade
of Frohse was performed in 5 cases.
Pobroprrative care. Control\ were carried out at about
2 week\ and between 1 and 4 months postoperatively.
RESULTS
Preoperative symptoms
All patients complained preoperatively of pain radi-
ally and proximally in the forearm. Pain at night
was the main complaint in 43 out of the 48 pa-
tients, 28 of these being among the 32 "resistant
tennis elbows". Most of the patients were often
awakened early in the morning by pain, many of
them every night for months or years. Other fre-
quent complaints were pain following and/or during
complained of weakness in the arm and hand. 3 of
weakening during work, while 2 others complained
finger movements.
Preoperative findings
Local tenderness. In all 50 forearms, an intensive
tenderness at palpation was found very distinctly
4 to 5 cm distal to the lateral epicondyle in the
groove radial to the extensor carpi radialis longus
muscle belly. There was constantly a definite
discrepancy compared with the findings on the
healthy side. In addition, there was a tenderness
over the lateral epicondyle in 20 elbows, 19 of these
being among the 32 "resistant tennis elbows".
Indirect pain. Pain proximally in the forearm was
208 C . G . Hugert et ul.
indirectly induced by supination against resistance
in 43 forearms, 29 of these being among the 32
“resistant tennis elbows”. Wrist joint extension
against resistance induced pain in 13 forearms,
9 of these being among the 32 “resistant tennis
elbows”. Finger extension against resistance
(mainly the long finger) induced pain in 29 fore-
arms, 19 of these being among the 32 “resistant
tennis elbows”.
Wruknrss. In 26 forearms some weakness was
noted in supination and in 21 hands in extension
of the fingers. Wrist joint extension showed normal
strength in all but 4 forearms. The weakness
seemed to be pain-induced. None of the patients
displayed any paresis of the extensor muscles.
Opertrtivr findings
The condition of the explored posterior interos-
seous nerve, particularly at the level of its en-
trance into the supinator muscle, was subjectively
evaluated by the surgeon as follows: neuroma for-
mation in terms of a tumour-like swelling of the
nerve immediately proximal to the arcade of
Frohse, was found in 1 nerve; evidence of entrup-
men? in terms of impression into the nerve at the
level of the arcade of Frohse was found in 34
nerves, sometimes in combination with a bulging
of the nerve proximally (Fig. 1); and no deJinite
evidence ($entrapment could be found in 5 nerves.
However, one of these nerves was further inspected
under the microscope. Following removal of the
epineural fat tissue, slight changes in terms of a
Fig. 2. Woman age 36. l o x . Mi-
croscopic appearance of the pos-
terior interosseous nerve following
division of the arcade of Frohse and
resection of the epineurium. I , Two
fascicles of normal appearance:
normal striation, no swelling. 2,
One fascicle showing lack of stria-
tion, and3, local swelling im-
mediately proximal to the level of
the divided arcade 4.
local, oedematous swelling of one of the fascicles
could then be observed (Fig. 2).
Nine nerves, early in the series, were not eval-
uated, mainly because of inexperience in what to
look for. 2 nerves could not be evaluated because
of venous bleeding.
Even though the main interest was focused on the
nerve a t its entrance into the supinator muscle, it
was also inspected some centimetres proximally.
However, no evidence of entrapment could be
found proximal t o the arcade of Frohse.
Complications
Two patients had a slight paresis of the extensor
digitorum communis with a slight drop of the long
finger. Complete recovery was registered within
2-3 months postoperatively. Another 2 patients
complained of numbness on the dorsum of the
hand. The symptoms subsided completely within
2-3 months.
F o l l o ~ Results
~p
The results have been classified into four groups.
Excellent: complete and persisting relief of all com-
plaints.
Good: considerable improvement, with relief of all
complaints except a slight, subsiding pain follow-
ing exertion periodically, not impairing the ability
to continue working; no pain at night.
Fuir: improvement, but periods of pain following
exertion, periodically compromising the capacity
of work; periodically pain at night.
Poor: no improvement, pain as preoperatively .
 Entrapment of the posterior interosseous nerve
The results following 50 nerve decompressions
were Excellent in 33; Good in 9; Fair in 6; and
Poor in 2 instances. Among the 32 “resistant tennis
elbows” the results were E.ucellent in 19; Good
in 8; Fair in 4; and Poor in 1 of the instances.
DISCUSSION
Clinically, entrapment of the posterior interosseous
nerve can manifest itself in two different ways:
(1) paresis of the extensor muscles of the forearm
except for the radial wrist joint extensors and the
brachioradialis muscle; (2) forearm pain without
paresis.
The present study clearly demonstrates that the
non-paretic form seems to be much more common
than has previously been realized, probably be-
cause it is easily overlooked. According to our
findings, this condition presents three cardinal
symptoms, namely forearm pain, particularly at
night, an intense local tenderness at palpation about
5 cm distal to the lateral epicondyle, and indirect
pain induced by supination against resistance.
Pain. The posterior interosseous nerve is often
called the “motor branch” of the radial nerve. It
may therefore appear confusing that pain could be a
significant sign of compression of that nerve. How-
ever, the term “motor branch” is inadequate if it
is thereby understood that it is composed of ef-
ferent fibres only. “Motor” nerves are composed of
efferent fibres as well as afferent fibres from deep
tissue structures (Thompson & Kopell). Pain as a
cardinal sign of compression should therefore not
be confusing.
Pain due to compression of the posterior interos-
seous nerve is in fact well documented in the
literature. Of those cases of the paretic form of
posterior interosseous nerve compression which
have been presented in the literature, several had
forearm pain for 2-14 days before the paresis ap-
peared (Hobhouse & Heald, 1936; Richmond,
1953; Campbell & Wulf, 1954; Kruse Jr, 1958;
Sharrard, 1966; Marmor et al.; Millender, Nalebuff
& Holdsworth, 1973; Benini & DiMartino; Over-
gaard Nielsen, 1976). In all these cases the clinical
picture indicated a compression of the posterior
interosseous nerve at, or near, the level of the
arcade of Frohse in terms of paresis of the thumb
and finger extensors and the ulnar wrist joint ex-
tensor, leaving the radial wrist joint extensors in-
tact. We therefore find it reasonable to state that
209
compression of the posterior interosseous nerve at
the level of the arcade really does give rise to pain
and, in fact, constitutes an early sign of entrap-
ment.
In our material pain at night was the most com-
mon and significant preoperative complaint. Such
night pain is, according to Thompson & Kopell,
a common complaint at nerve compressions in
general, but has been reported only once in as-
sociation with entrapment of the posterior interos-
seous nerve (Comtet, Chambaud & Genety, 1976).
Local tenderness about 5 cm distal to the lateral
epicondyle was in our material an invariable pre-
operative finding. In fact, such a tenderness has
been reported in association with the paretic form
of posterior interosseous nerve compression (Guil-
lain & Courtellemont, 1905; Woltman & Lear-
month, 1934; Weinberger, 1939; Kruse Jr; Whiteley
& Alpers, 1959; Bowen & Stone, 1966; Mulhol-
land, 1966; Sharrard; Comtet et al.), but was in
general not considered a cardinal sign of this con-
dition. However, on the basis of our observations,
we find it justified to regard this symptom as the
most characteristic sign of the posterior interos-
seous nerve compression (cf. Roles & Maudsley).
Nevertheless, this finding must always be eval-
uated in comparison with the status of the healthy
arm, as a certain tenderness is normally to be
found (Roles & Maudsley; Lister, 1977).
Indirect pain, induced by supination against re-
sistance, was a frequent finding in our material (cf.
Lister). This sign is probably caused by squeezing
of the nerve in the arcade of Frohse in association
with contraction of the supinator muscle. However,
pain induced by extension of the long finger against
resistance was not found to be so characteristic a
sign as reported by Roles & Maudsley.
Site of compression. Some various anatomical
structures at different levels of the forearm have
been suggested by Roles & Maudsley as possible
causes of compression of the posterior interosseous
nerve: (1) adhesions around the nerve proximal to
the arcade of Frohse; ( 2 ) a tense fibrous edge medi-
ally of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle;
(3) the arcade of Frohse. The authors claim the
extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and the arcade
of Frohse to be the two most important structures
to give rise to the nerve compression. The im-
portance of extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle
has also been pointed out by Giattini (1968). Spin-
ner (1968; 1972) found in his dissection studies that
Sccirid J Plast R w o n s t r Surx I I
210 C.-G. Hugert et al.
the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle com-
pressed the nerve as the forearm was fully pro-
nated. However, Spinner (1968) has also empha-
sized that compression of the posterior interosseous
nerve “becomes a distinct possibility when a fi-
brous arch of Frohse is present”, which he found
in 30% adult specimens. Also Capener (1966) con-
sidered the nerve vulnerable at its entrance into
the supinator muscle.
In the present study the compression seemed in
all cases to be caused by the arcade of Frohse
(Figs. I , 2), and we did not find any visible sign
of compression at other levels by other structures.
Severity of nerve compression. Assuming there is
only one site of compression, namely at the arcade
of Frohse, we think the variations in symptomatol-
ogy from merely pain to irreversible paralysis may
be due to variations in the severity of compres-
sion at this level, and/or to variations in the in-
ternal topography of the nerve as well as in the
topography around the nerve.
Stereomicroscopic observations of the posterior
interosseous nerve (5 cases) always revealed dif-
ferent extent of compression in different areas of
the nerve. Sometimes there was an impression into
just one or two fascicles (Fig. I). In some other
cases there was just a swelling of one fascicle at
the site of compression, with a disappearing of the
normal striation of the fascicle, while in the other
fascicles the striation appeared intact (Fig. 2). We
consider the loss of striation being due to a local,
intraneural oedema and/or fibrosis based upon ex-
ternal, local pressure on that part of the nerve.
Intraneural oedema as a result of local compres-
sion of a peripheral nerve has recently been dem-
onstrated experimentally by Rydevik & Lundborg
(1977).
Thus, apparently there could be a selective com-
pression of just some par; of the nerve. This find-
ing, which we have not found presented earlier in
relation to the posterior interosseous nerve, is in
full agreement with the work of Spinner & Spencer
(1974). These authors state that various parts of a
nerve, and even various parts of a single fascicle,
may suffer differently to compression. For the pur-
pose of a more comprehensive understanding of the
posterior interosseous nerve compression syn-
drome there is a need for further investigation of the
internal topography of the nerve, particularly with
reference to the arcade of Frohse.
Nerve compression as related to niuscle activity.
In our material we found the most loaded arm to
be affected in 88%, which corresponds well with
the report by Roles & Maudsley. Like these authors
we also found a high frequence of women carrying
out arduous domestic work, and also a predomina-
tion of occupations requiring repeated supination
and pronation or forceful extension of the elbow.
In our material there were 6 patients presenting an
acute onset of the symptoms, which they referred
to an extreme activity at a very defined moment,
which they were able to recall in detail. Thus,
there are strong evidents indicating that the non-
paretic, painful entrapment of the posterior interos-
seous nerve might be caused by excessive load of
the arm, such as repeated rotation movements
or lifting with the elbow joint extended (cf. Roles &
Maudsley).
Differential diagnosis. The main differential diag-
nosis is, beyond any comparison, chronic lateral
epicondylitis, “resistant tennis elbow”. We disagree
with the opinion of posterior interosseous nerve
compression being one causative factor to therapy
resistant tennis elbow, as suggested by Capener
(1966) and Roles & Maudsley, amongst others. We
are of the opinion that therapy-resistant tennis
elbow and posterior interosseous nerve compres-
sion are two different disorders, which have nothing
to do with each other, and which should therefore
not be mixed up.
Lateral epicondylitis is, according to the litera-
ture, characterized by pain in the radial region of
the elbow directly correlated to efforts and just
present during activity, while there is no rest pain.
Pain at night, e.g. is not reported. Local tender-
ness should be limited distinct to the lateral epi-
condyle, and pain should appear in the same region
on extension of the wrist joint (Goldie, 1964).
The present study has shown that entrapment of
the posterior interosseous nerve is characterized by
pain at rest, particularly pain at night. Local tender-
ness was invariably found about 5 cm distal to the
lateral epicondyle, radial to the extensor carpi
radialis longus muscle. Besides there could be a
local tenderness over the lateral epicondyle, in our
study present in about 40%. Pain was mostly in-
duced by supination, but less frequently by wrist
joint extension against resistance.
Follow-up results
Out of the 50 nerve decompressions 42 resulted
in complete or almost complete relief of pain. We
 Entrapment of the posterior interosseous nerve
consider this a verification of the entrapment being
the cause of the preoperative complaints.
However, in 2 cases the results were classified
as Poor. These 2 patients presented signs of both
posterior interosseous nerve entrapment and cervi-
cal rizopathia. None of them reported any im-
provement following surgery.
In 6 instances the results were classified as Fair.
All of these cases presented a somewhat complex
picture of brachalgia. 4 of these had previously
been treated as lateral epicondylitis, 3 of them with
surgery one or several times (Table I). Following
nerve decompression there were still signs of lateral
epicondylitis in 1 case, requiring local steroid in-
jections, even though the decompression resulted
in relief of numbness and some pain. Thus, it seems
possible that nerve entrapment and lateral epicon-
dylitis might appear simultaneously in one arm as
two different entities.
CONCLUSIONS
Pain proximally-radially in the forearm should nof
be interpreted as tennis elbow if the following three
characteristics are present: ( a ) pain at night; ( b )
local tenderness about 5 cm distal to the lateral
epicondyle, irrespective of whether or not there is
also local tenderness distinctly over the lateral
epicondyle; ( c ) indirect pain induced by supina-
tion against resistance.
When present, these characteristics indicate a
non-paretic entrapment of the posterior interos-
seous nerve at the level of the arcade of Frohse
(entrance of the nerve into the supinator muscle).
This condition is certainly much more common
than has previously been believed.
If the complaints do not subside spontaneously,
relief can be expected in the majority of the cases
following splitting of the arcade, thereby decom-
pressing the nerve.
REFERENCES
Benini, A. & Di Martino, E. 1976. Die Schadigung des
Ramus profundus nervi radialis (Supinatorsyndrom).
Schweiz Med Wochenschr 106, 639.
Bowen, T. L. & Stone, K. H. 1966. Posterior interos-
seous nerve paralysis caused by a ganglia at the elbow.
J Bone Joint Surg 4 8 B , 774.
Campbell, C. S . & Wulf, R. F. 1954. Lipoma producing
a lesion of the deep branch of the radial nerve. J
Neurosurg 11, 310.
14-77291 3
21 i
Capener, N. 1960. Report of the Annual Meeting of the
British Medical Association, Torquay. Br Med J ii,
130.
- 1964. Posterior interosseous nerve lesions. Proceed-
ings of the Second Hand Club. J Bone Joint Surg
4 6 B , 361.
- 1966. The vulnerability of the posterior interosseous
nerve of the forearm. J Bone Joinf Surg 4 8 B , 770.
Comtet, J.-J., Chambaud, D. & Genety, J. 1976. La
compression de la branche posterieure du nerf radial.
Une Ctiologie meconnue de ceratines paralysies et de
certaines epicondylalgies rebelles. Nouv Presse Med
24, 1 1 1 1 .
Giattini, J. F. 1968. The anatomy of the radial nerve at
the elbow and its relationship to tennis elbow. J Bone
Joinf Surg 50 A , 843.
Goldie, I. 1964. Epicondylitis lateralis humeri (epicon-
dylalgia or tennis elbow): A pathogenetical study.
Acra Chir Scund, Suppl. 339, 7-1 19.
Goldman, S., Honet, J. C., Sobel, R. & Goldstein, A. S.
1969. Posterior interosseous nerve palsy in the absence
of trauma. Arch Neurol21, 435.
Guillain, G. & Courtellemont. 1905. L'action du mus-
cle court supinateur dans la paralysis du nerf radial.
Presse M e d 13, 50.
Hobhouse, N. & Heald, C. B. 1936. A case of posterior
interosseous paralysis. Br M e d J i , 841.
Kruse Jr, F. 1958. Paralysis of the dorsal interosseous
nerve not due to direct trauma. Neurol (Suppl.) 8,
307.
Lister, G. 1977. In The Hand, Diagnosis and Indications,
pp. 111-1 15. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, Lon-
don and New York.
Marmor, L., Lawrence, J. F. & Dubois, E. L. 1967.
Posterior interosseous nerve palsy due to rheumatoid
arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 4 9 A , 381.
Millender, L. H., Nalebuff, E. A. & Holdsworth, D. E.
1973. Posterior interosseous-nerve syndrome second-
ary to rheumatoid synovitis. J Bone Joint Surg SSA,
153.
Mulholland, R. C. 1%6. Non-traumatic progressive paral-
ysis of the posterior interosseous nerve. J Bone Joinf
S u r g 4 8 B , 781.
Mumenthaler, M . 1974. Charakteristische Krankheitsbil-
der nicht unmittelbar traumatischer peripherer Ner-
venschaden. Nervenarzt 4 5 , 61.
Overgaard Nielsen, H. 1976. Posterior interosseous nerve
paralysis caused by fibrous band compression at the
supinator muscle. Acta Orthop Scand 47, 304.
Richmond, D. A. 1953. Lipoma causing a posterior inter-
osseous nerve lesion. J Bone Joint Surg 3 S B , 83.
Roles, N. C. & Maudsley, R. H. 1972. Radial tunnel
syndrome. Resistant tennis elbow as a nerve entrap-
ment. J Bone Joint Surg 54 B , 499.
Rydevik, B. & Lundborg, G. 1977. Permeability of intra-
neural microvessels and perineurium following acute,
graded experimental nerve compression. Scand J Plast
Reconstr Surg 11, 179.
Sharrard, W. J . W. 1966. Posterior interosseous neuritis.
J Bone Joint Surg 4 8 B , 777.
Spinner, M. 1968. The arcade of Frohse and its rela-
Scund J Plusr Rrconsrr Surg I I
LIL L . - C J .n a g e r t er a / .
tionship to posterior interosseous nerve paralysis. J
Bone Joint Surg 50B,809.
- 1972. In Injuries t o the Major Branches of Peripheral
Nerves of the Foreurm, pp. 28-38. Saunders, Phila-
delphia, London, Toronto.
Spinner, M. & Spencer, P. S. 1974. Nerve compression
lesions of the upper extremity. Clin Orthop 104, 46.
Thompson, W. A. L. & Kopell, H. P. 1959. Peripheral
entrapment neuropathies of the upper extremity. N
E n g l J M e d 2 6 0 , 1261.
Weinberger, L. M. 1939. Non-traumatic paralysis of the
dorsal interosseous nerve. Surg Gynecol Obstet 69,
358.
Whiteley, W. H. & Alpers, B. J. 1959. Posterior inter-
osseous nerve palsy with spontaneous neuroma forma-
tion. Arch Neurol l , 226.
Woltman, H . W. & Learmonth, J . R. 1934. Progressive
paralysis of the nervus interosseous dorsalis. Brain
6 2 , 25.