Clinical outcomes after internal fixation, arthroplasty and resection for treatment of comminuted radial head fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Radial Head Fractures: Current Trends in Treatment and Outcomes, A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Radial head fractures are common elbow fractures in adults, and their treatment algorithm remains controversial. Particularly with displaced Mason III or IV radial head fractures, studies have shown mixed results when comparing outcomes between radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Although multifactorial, patient characteristics often play a large role in treatment modality. The purpose of this study was to analyze the current trend in the management of radial head fractures, complications, and need for repeat operation among these groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database review using the IBM Truven MarketScan Databases and analyzing all available patients treated for radial head fractures between 2015 to 2020. Patients were grouped by treatment modality, including nonoperative, ORIF, radial head excision (RHE), and RHA. Patient characteristics, complication rates, reoperation rates, and predictive factors for undergoing surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 18,945 cases of radial head fractures that underwent treatment. The majority of patients were managed nonoperatively (16,035), and fewer were treated via ORIF, RHA, and RHE (1,636, 1,174, and 100, respectively). Of these, between 1% and 2.5% of patients in each group underwent revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

We found that patients who undergo RHA or RHE are typically older and have more comorbidities compared to patients who are treated nonoperatively or undergo ORIF. We found no significant difference in reoperation rates based on initial mode of treatment. Male sex, osteoporosis, coronary artery disease, and a displaced fracture are predictive of undergoing surgery for a radial head fracture. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

Analysis of Surgical Stabilization Results of Radial Head Fractures

Background/Objectives: According to the modified Mason classification, radial head fractures can be treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head arthroplasty, or resection. This study by the Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Military Institute of Medicine aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of fractures treated with ORIF. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 55 patients with radial head fractures treated between April 2020 and February 2023. Fractures were classified using Mason system as 15 type II, 26 type III, and 14 type IV. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the VAS for pain, Broberg-Morrey scale, and the DASH questionnaire, alongside assessments of range of motion, grip strength, and elbow stability. Follow-up radiographs examined bone union, bone fragments displacement, degenerative changes and periarticular ossification. Results: The mean follow-up period was 21.0 ± 10.2 months. There were no statistically significant differences in VAS scale results for Mason types II, III, and IV fractures (4.0 vs. 6.0 vs. 5.0, respectively; p = 0.825), the Broberg-Morrey scale (82.0 ± 15.2 vs. 80.9 ± 15.5 vs. 84.2 ± 15.1, respectively; p = 0.845), or the DASH questionnaire (10.0 vs. 11.7 vs. 17.5, respectively; p = 0.937). Mean extension deficit and supination angles were at the limit of statistical significance (p = 0.076 and p = 0.051). No cases of lateral instability were observed, whereas medial instability was seen in only one case. Bone union was observed in 97.5% of cases, with elbow joint osteoarthritis and periarticular ossification in 15.0% and 45.0% of cases, respectively. Conclusions: Mason type II, III and IV radial head fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation showed good functional and radiological outcomes with rare complications, including degenerative changes, periarticular ossifications and nonunion.

Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation in Mason 3 radial head fractures: meta-analysis of prospective trials

BACKGROUND

Radial head fractures (RHF) represent about one-third of all elbow fractures, comprising approximately 2%-5% of all fractures sustained. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are as follows: (i) to compare complications rate in patients undergoing radial head arthroplasty (RHA) or open reduction and internal fixation as surgical treatments for Mason type 3 RHF; (ii) to compare clinical outcome and functional score in patients undergoing RHA or ORIF in Mason type 3 RHF.

METHODS

Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature systematic review of literature was conducted up to March 2024. All prospective studies were included. The analysis employed the log odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as the outcome measure.

RESULTS

Six studies were incorporated into the systematic review. A total of three studies, published between 2009 and 2021, were included in the meta-analysis. A cohort of 169 patients affected by Mason 3 RHFs was collected. The ORIF group included 65 patients, and 26 events of complications after ORIF were observed. RHA group, instead, consisted of 70 patients, and 8 events of complications were identified.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal that the Mason type 3 RHFs treated with open reduction and internal fixation, exhibits a higher risk of complications compared to those patients treated with RHA. Moreover, the standardized mean difference analysis suggests that the ORIF group demonstrates a lower mean Broberg and Morrey Elbow score in comparison to the RHA group, with a higher functional recovery in RHA group.

The impact of anatomic alignment on radiocapitellar pressure following radial head arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The incidence of radial head fractures is increasing, and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is being more frequently used as treatment for irreparable fractures. Our objective was to compare radiocapitellar pressure between the native joint and 2 radial head prosthesis conditions: (1) a prosthetic head that was aligned to the forearm axis of rotation and (2) the same prosthesis with an axisymmetric nonaligned head.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric specimens received a pressfit radial head prosthesis (Align; Skeletal Dynamics) for both prosthetic testing conditions. Anatomic alignment (AL) was defined as the prosthetic head aligned to the forearm axis of rotation. Axisymmetric alignment (AX) was defined as the prosthetic radial head aligned to the axis of the prosthetic stem. Axial load was applied with the elbow in extension and the forearm pronated. Data were collected using a Tekscan 4000 sensor.

RESULTS

The mean pressure in the AL and AX groups were significantly higher than the mean pressure in the native joint. Compared with the native joint, the mean pressure was 19% higher in the AL group and 56% higher in the AX group. Peak pressure beyond 5 MPa occurred in 0 specimens in the native joint group, in 1 specimen (10%) in the AL group, and in 5 specimens (50%) in the AX group.

DISCUSSION

Our results demonstrated that a pressfit radial head prosthesis aligned with the forearm axis of rotation yields capitellar pressures that were more similar to the native condition than a nonaligned pressfit prosthesis. These findings suggest that anatomic alignment may optimize capitellar wear properties, improving the long-term durability of radial head arthroplasty.

Radial head replacement for acute complex elbow instability: a long-term comparative cohort study of 2 implant designs

BACKGROUND

Radial head fractures not amenable to reconstruction should be treated by radial head replacement (RHR) when there is associated elbow or forearm instability. There are multiple RHR designs with different philosophies, but 2 of the most commonly used implants include the anatomic press-fit radial head system and the loose-fit metallic spacer. There is little information available specifically comparing the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of these 2 systems. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes of 2 RHR designs in the context of complex acute elbow instability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-five patients with an average age of 54 years (range, 21-87 years) underwent an acute RHR (46 press-fit Acumed anatomic and 49 loose-fit Evolve metallic spacer) and were prospectively followed for an average of 61 months (range, 24-157 months). There were 34 terrible triads; 36 isolated RH fractures with medial, lateral, or longitudinal instability; and 25 RH fractures associated with a proximal ulnar fracture. Clinical outcome and disability were evaluated with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Pain and satisfaction were assessed using a visual analog scale. Radiographic analysis included presence of loosening, bone loss, and overstuffing related to the RHR.

RESULTS

Eight patients with an anatomic RHR (2 with overstuffing, 3 for stiffness, and 3 with loose implants) and 1 patient with a spacer (with stiffness) required implant removal. There were no significant differences between spacer RHR and anatomic RHR in arc of motion (120° vs. 113°, P = .14), pain relief (1 vs. 1.7, P = .135), MEPS (94 vs. 88; P = .07), Oxford Elbow Score (42.3 vs. 42.2, P = .4), or DASH score (12.2 vs. 14.4, P = .5). However, patients with a spacer RHR were significantly more satisfied (9 vs. 7.7; P = .004) than those with an anatomic implant. Radiographically, 19 anatomic implants had significant proximal bone loss and 10 showed complete lucent lines around the stem. Lucent lines were common around the spacer RHR. These radiographic changes were not always related to worse clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both the anatomic and spacer RHR designs can provide good clinical long-term outcomes. However, patients with a spacer showed a higher degree of satisfaction and those with an anatomic press-fit RHR had a higher revision rate, with radiographic changes that warrant continued follow-up.

Is implant choice associated with fixation strength for displaced radial neck fracture: a network meta-analysis of biomechanical studies

The multitude of fixation options for radial neck fractures, such as pins, screws, biodegradable pins and screws, locking plates, and blade plates, has led to a lack of consensus on the optimal implant choice and associated biomechanical properties. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical strength of various fixation constructs in axial, sagittal, and torsional loading directions. We included biomechanical studies comparing different interventions, such as cross/parallel screws, nonlocking plates with or without augmented screws, fixed angle devices (T or anatomic locking plates or blade plates), and cross pins. A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL EBSCO databases was conducted on September 26th, 2022. Data extraction was carried out by one author and verified by another. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Primary outcomes encompassed axial, bending, and torsional stiffness, while the secondary outcome was bending load to failure. Effect sizes were calculated for continuous outcomes, and relative treatment ranking was measured using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Our analysis encompassed eight studies, incorporating 172 specimens. The findings indicated that fixed angle constructs, specifically the anatomic locking plate, demonstrated superior axial stiffness (mean difference [MD]: 23.59 N/mm; 95% CI 8.12-39.06) in comparison to the cross screw. Additionally, the blade plate construct excelled in bending stiffness (MD: 32.37 N/mm; 95% CI - 47.37 to 112.11) relative to the cross screw construct, while the cross-screw construct proved to be the most robust in terms of bending load failure. The parallel screw construct performed optimally in torsional stiffness (MD: 139.39 Nm/degree; 95% CI 0.79-277.98) when compared to the cross screw construct. Lastly, the nonlocking plate, locking T plate, and cross-pin constructs were found to be inferior in most respects to alternative interventions. The NMA indicated that fixed angle devices (blade plate and anatomic locking plate) and screw fixations may exhibit enhanced biomechanical strength in axial and bending directions, whereas cross screws demonstrated reduced torsional stability in comparison to parallel screws. It is imperative for clinicians to consider the application of these findings in constraining forces across various directions during early range of motion exercises, taking into account the distinct biomechanical properties of the respective implants.

[Radial head prosthesis for acute fractures]

Non-reconstructible radial head fractures with concomitant injuries and resultant instability of the elbow are often treated by implantation of a radial head prosthesis. Various prosthetic designs and implantation techniques are available. Several pitfalls have to be respected during implantation. This article provides tips and tricks for successful implantation and aftercare and gives an overview of long-term outcomes and revision rates.

Excision Versus Replacement in Unrepairable Comminuted Fractures of the Radial Head: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

The radial head fractures comprise approximately 4% of all fractures around the elbow. The outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation are poor in fractures with more than three fragments, and the excision of radial head is considered a viable surgical treatment option. However, it is associated with its own set of complications. The radial head prosthetic replacement has emerged as an alternative in management of these fractures with constraints of cost and related complications. Hence, the treatment for the unrepairable comminuted radial head fractures still remains controversial.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the post-operative outcomes of the radial head excision versus prosthetic replacement in comminuted Mason type-III fractures of radial head.

METHODOLOGY

Three databases of Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Embase were searched for comparative studies on the study question and relevant studies which mentioned at least one of the outcomes of interest (functional outcome scores and number of complications) were included.

RESULTS

Six studies were part of this review with 82 excisions and 99 prosthetic replacements. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of number of complications (OR 0.65; 0.08-5.07); and measures of functional outcomes; Mayo elbow performance score or MEPS (mean difference - 6.56; - 23.45 to 10.33). The incidence of elbow osteoarthritis, heterotrophic ossification, stiffness, and instability were similar in both groups. The flexion extension arc in degrees was better in excision group (mean difference 9.93; 1.31-18.55; p = .02).

CONCLUSION

Excision is a reasonable surgical option for isolated comminuted radial head fractures with similar results of function and associated rates of complications as prosthetic replacements. The arc of motion is also better with excisions. There have been reports of more osteoarthritis with excision and arthroplasty has been advised in younger patients; however, we had no quantitative proof of that in this review.

Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation for the treatment of terrible triad injury of the elbow: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

Terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) is a severe high-energy injury to the elbow, mainly including elbow dislocation, coronoid fracture and radial head fracture. It is difficult to maintain the stability of the elbow joint using traditional conservative treatment, and there is a high risk of redislocation and various complications. Therefore, surgical treatment is currently advocated, mainly for repairing damaged ligaments and reconstructing bony structures, but there is still controversy about the treatment plan for the radial head. The current meta-analysis was conducted to compare the differences in efficacy of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of TTIE. Published literature related to the treatment (either ORIF or RHA) of TTIE was searched for in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. According to the search strategy, a total of 1,928 related publications were retrieved. The patient must have been diagnosed with TTIE and required surgery on the radial head. The interventions were RHA and ORIF. Non-case-control studies, case reports, review articles, letters, duplicate reports and literature without sufficient relevant data were excluded. The quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology and the Jadad scale. After data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using ReviewManager 5.4 software (Cochrane). A total of 15 studies involving 455 patients (189 who underwent RHA and 266 who underwent ORIF) were included. Range of motion (ROM) of the forearm (pronation-supination arc) after surgery in the RHA group [95% CI (0.28, 9.59); P=0.04] was found to be significantly superior to the ORIF group, with a lower incidence of complications [95% CI (0.22, 0.84); P=0.01]. However, there was no statistically significant difference for the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score nor for ROM of the elbow (flexion-extension arc). Overall, compared with the ORIF group, the RHA group had better forearm rotational ROM and fewer complications after surgery. Therefore, RHA was found to be superior to ORIF in the treatment of TTIE.

Clinical long-term results of radial head arthroplasty in comminuted radial head fractures

Modern radial head prostheses have recently become more common in the treatment of comminuted radial head fractures. The goal of this study was to evaluate how well the EVOLVE^® modular metallic radial head implant prosthetic restores the functional range of motion and stability of the elbow. 30 patients with comminuted radial head fractures received an arthroplasty with an EVOLVE^® prosthesis in our institution. 20 of those patients were available for long-term follow-up (mean > 10 years). The outcomes were assessed on the basis of pain, motion, and strength. The overall outcome was scored with functional rating scores. According to the Broberg-Morrey elbow evaluation score, after a mean follow-up period of 10.2 years, ten (50.0%) patients were rated as very good, four (20.0%) as good, six (30.0%) as satisfactory, and none as poor. In the long-term results the Broberg-Morrey score increased from 79 (in short-term results) to 89 points. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) outcome measure questionnaire showed an average of 16.2 points. Initially, patients had an extension deficit of 20°, which was reduced to 5° at the latest follow-up. In our long-term results, an improvement in the function of the elbow was observed after arthroplasty using a metallic modular radial head implant. Comminuted radial head fractures with elbow instability can be treated effectively with the EVOLVE^® radial head prosthesis, which restores stability in acute treatment. Our long-term results after 10.2 years demonstrate good functional outcome and low major complication rate. IV.

Efficacy and safety of monopolar versus bipolar radial head arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radial head replacement is the main line of treating complex unstable elbow injuries. Radial head prostheses are either monopolar or bipolar. The difference between both designs in patients' clinical outcomes and postoperative complications is not yet clear. So, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monopolar vs. bipolar implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched to identify studies comparing monopolar and bipolar implants. Data on clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, revision, and removal rates were extracted.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 591 patients (365 monopolar and 226 bipolar). Both prostheses achieved similar ranges of motion; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and visual analog scale for pain. Incidence of postoperative complications was also similar between both designs. Revision and removal rates were 24%, 8% and 29%, 14% for monopolar and bipolar implants, respectively, but no statistically significant difference could be detected.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was found between monopolar and bipolar radial head prostheses in terms of efficacy and safety. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the superiority of one design over the other.

30-Day outcomes analysis of surgical management of radial head fractures comparing radial head arthroplasty to open reduction internal fixation

INTRODUCTION

Radial head arthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation are two commonly utilized treatment options for radial head fractures. The purpose of this study is to assess the incidence of and risk factors for short-term complications following radial head arthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation of radial head fractures.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients that underwent radial head arthroplasty or open reduction internal fixation for radial head fractures between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2017. The incidence of various 30-day complications, including unplanned readmission, reoperation, non-home discharge, mortality, surgical/medical complications, and extended length-of-stay were compared between the two propensity matched groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for various short-term complications.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, a total of 435 patients were included in our analysis. 250 patients underwent radial head arthroplasty, and 185 patients underwent open reduction internal fixation. Arthroplasty treated patients had a significantly longer mean total operative time (p = .031) and length-of-stay (p = .003). No significant 30-day complications differences were found for unplanned readmission, reoperation, non-home discharge, mortality, surgical complications or medical complications. Independent risk factors for any complications of both procedures included a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III. Significant risk factors for length-of-stay greater than two days included a history of bleeding disorder and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed there were no significant differences in 30-day perioperative surgical or medical complications from either surgical treatment of radial head fractures; however, radial head arthroplasty treated patients were met with a significantly longer length-of-stay and longer duration of operating time. We also identified risk factors that were independently associated with higher rates of complications regardless of treatment type.

Imaging the Postoperative Elbow

Evaluation of postoperative images of any joint can be a daunting task, and the elbow is no exception. Patients may be imaged with a complication of the repair, or the postoperative changes may be incidentally observed as the patient is imaged for other reasons. We divide the postoperative elbow into soft tissue procedures (covering ligament and tendon repairs, as well as compartmental release and nerve transposition), joint-related procedures (osteochondral lesion treatment, ostectomy, and joint replacement), and bone procedures (fracture fixation). We summarize the procedures and their indications, show normal imaging appearances, and finally cover common complications.

Long-term outcomes of radial head arthroplasty for radial head fractures-a systematic review at minimum 8-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the functional outcomes, radiologic outcomes, and revision rates following radial head arthroplasty (RHA) at a minimum of 8 years follow-up.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Only studies reporting on outcomes of RHA with a minimum of mean 8 years' follow-up were considered for inclusion.

RESULTS

Our search found 10 studies including 432 elbows (51% males), with average age of 50 years (15-93) and mean follow-up of 117 months (98-145) met our inclusion criteria. At final follow-up, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire score were 83 (45-100) and 17 (0-63) respectively, and 86% of patients reported having no or minimal pain. The overall dislocation, subluxation, ulnar neuritis, and infection rates were 2%, 4%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. The rates of radiologic loosening, radiolucency, degenerative change, and heterotopic ossification were 9%, 46%, 27%, and 38%, respectively. The overall surgical revision rates were 20%, with 3%, 15%, and 5% requiring RHA implant revision, removal of metal or implants, and arthrolysis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review established that RHA results in satisfactory clinical outcomes and modest complication and revision rates at long-term follow-up, despite high levels of radiologic degenerative changes over the same period.

Radial head fractures

Radial head fractures are the commonest fractures in the elbow. They are often associated with other injuries: ligamentous, cartilaginous or other fractures. Associated injuries are important determinant of the management of the radial head fracture. These should be carefully looked for, diagnosed and treated. The original Mason classification for this fracture has been modified to include the associated injuries and their treatment. CT scan is a helpful diagnostic tool and should be used if available. Radial head fractures can be treated either conservatively or operatively (by excision, open reduction and internal fixation or prosthetic replacement). Undisplaced or minimally displaced fractures should be treated non-operatively. Internal fixation by headless cannulated screws is the preferred treatment for displaced fractures. It provides satisfactory biomechanical stability, can be done through a smaller incision, has less complications and lesser requirement of later removal of screws. Small number of fractures with comminution of neck would require plate fixation. Unfixable fractures in elderly can be treated by excision while such fractures in younger population or associated with significant soft tissue or bony injuries would require prosthetic replacement.