Total elbow arthroplasty versus plate fixation for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes at mean follow-up of four years following AO type-C distal humerus fractures managed with fixation or arthroplasty

Aim

To compare outcomes between open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), total elbow replacement (TER) and distal humerus hemiarthroplasty (DHH) for AO type-C (AOC) fractures of the distal humerus in patients aged 50 years or older.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of acute AOC distal humerus fractures in patients aged 50 years or older between 2016 and 2022. Outcomes measured: Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), complication rate, re-operation rate and range of movement (ROM).

Results

Sixty-five patients met the inclusion criteria (20 males, 45 females). Mean age was 64.4, 77.1 and 61.3 years old for ORIF, TER and DHH respectively. Logistic model analysis revealed a statistically significant increased complication rate in the ORIF group compared to the TER and DHH groups (ORIF vs TER p = 0.01; ORIF vs DHH p = 0.048). There was a higher re-operation rate in the ORIF group compared to the DHH group (p = 0.03). There were no differences in OES, MEPS or ROM between groups.

Discussion

This supports the use of TER in elderly patients with AOC distal humerus fractures. In the younger patient, DHH may have lower rates of complications and re-operations compared to ORIF, but function remains similar. We propose a prospective randomised control trial.

Elbow hemiarthroplasty and total elbow arthroplasty provided a similar functional outcome for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in patients aged 60 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an established treatment for elderly patients with distal humeral fractures not amenable to stable internal fixation (unreconstructable). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA), a treatment option which does not entail restrictions on weight-bearing as opposed to TEA. These 2 treatments have not been compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of EHA and TEA for the treatment of unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in elderly patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients were included between January 2011 and November 2019 at one of 3 participating hospitals. The inclusion criteria were an unreconstructable distal humeral fracture, age ≥60 years and independent living. The final follow-up took place after ≥2 years. The primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcome measures were the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the EQ-5D index, range of motion (flexion, extension, pronation, and supination) and grip strength.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomized to TEA (n = 20) and EHA (n = 20). Five patients died before completing the final follow-up, leaving 18 EHA and 17 TEA patients for analysis. There were 31 women. The mean age was 74.0 (SD, 8.5) years in the EHA group and 76.9 (SD, 7.6) in the TEA group (P = .30). The mean DASH score was 21.6 points in the EHA group and 27.2 in the TEA group (P = .39), a difference of -5.6 points (95% CI: -18.6 to 7.5). There were no differences between treatment with EHA and TEA for the mean values of the MEPS (85.0 vs. 88.2, P = .59), EQ-5D index (0.92 vs. 0.86, P = .13), extension (29° vs. 29°, P = .98), flexion (126° vs. 136°, P = .05), arc of flexion-extension (97° vs. 107°, P = .25), supination (81° vs. 75°, P = .13), pronation (78° vs. 74°, P = .16) or grip strength (17.5 kg vs. 17.2 kg, P = .89). There were 6 adverse events in each treatment group.

CONCLUSION

In this RCT, both elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) resulted in a good and similar functional outcome for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in elderly patients at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Comparison of the Complications, Reoperations, and Clinical Outcomes between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation and Total Elbow Arthroplasty for Distal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Distal humeral fractures are challenging injuries seen in the elderly. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) are the gold standard treatments. Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an alternative to ORIF. This study aimed to pool and analyze the outcomes and complications in elderly patients with distal humeral fractures treated with either ORIF or TEA by performing a meta-analysis. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared the clinical and functional outcomes of ORIF and TEA in patients aged 60 years or older. After screening and performing a quality assessment of the articles, we obtained one randomized control study and nine retrospective comparative studies. The odds ratio and standardized mean difference were used to analyze the differences in outcomes between the two surgical options. In terms of the flexion/extension arc, TEA produced significantly better outcomes than ORIF (p = 0.02). The rates of reoperation and elbow stiffness were significantly lower in the TEA group than in the ORIF group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.04, respectively). However, the functional scores and other ranges of motion (flexion, loss of extension, pronation, supination) after surgery were similar between the two groups. The outcomes from the present meta-analysis can provide guidance when selecting a surgical option for distal humeral fractures in the elderly.

Elbow hemiarthroplasty vs. open reduction internal fixation for acute Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type 13C fractures—A systematic review

Background

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the standard treatment for multifragmentary intra-articular distal humeral fractures. Fractures not amenable by ORIF are treated with total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). In recent years, elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) has been used as an alternative to TEA, as weight bearing restrictions and risk of component loosening are lower. We systematically reviewed the literature reporting functional outcomes and complication rates after either EHA or ORIF for Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type 13C fractures.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria were at least 5 patients, aged ≥50 years, AO/OTA type 13C fracture treated with ORIF or EHA, and evaluation with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The results were synthesized qualitatively using weighted means. No comparative statistical analyses were done.

Results

We included 27 articles, which included 96 patients treated with EHA and 535 patients treated with ORIF. We identified 1 randomized controlled trial and 26 case series. The weighted mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 86.9 (n = 89) in the EHA group and 84.7 (n = 535) in the ORIF group. There were 26 (33%) complications (n = 78) in the EHA group and 103 (38%) complications (n = 270) in the ORIF group. Complication rates were generally high in both groups.

Conclusion

We found comparable results of EHA and ORIF, which indicate that EHA is a viable treatment option for AO/OTA type 13C fractures not amenable by ORIF. Because of high risk of bias, interpretation of the results should be done with caution.