Controversies Surrounding the Management of the Isolated Type-II Radial-Head Fracture

Comparison of operatively and nonoperatively treated isolated mason type II radial head fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radial head fractures are the most common bony injury of the elbow in adults. The current literature does not agree on whether isolated stable type II radial head fractures should be treated operatively or nonoperatively. This review aims to determine the preferred treatment for Mason type II radial head fractures and compare the outcomes of conservative and surgical treatment.

METHODS

Our study used PRISMA guidelines and conducted a thorough search of multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases, initially identifying 545 relevant publications on surgical and conservative treatment of Mason type II radial head fractures. The final search date for this study is July 7, 2024.Through a comprehensive meta-analysis, we evaluated several outcomes, including functional scores (DASH, OES, and MEPS scores), clinical outcomes (elbow flexion, elbow extension deficit, elbow pronation, and elbow supination), and complication rate (total complications and elbow pain). The mean difference (MD) was compared for continuous outcomes, and the odds ratios (ORs) were compared for categorical outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 271 patients from 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 142 patients received surgical treatment and 129 patients received non-surgical treatment. The study found no statistically significant differences between surgical and non-surgical treatments in DASH, OES, MEPS, elbow flexion, elbow extension impairment, and elbow pain. Compared with surgical treatment, non-surgical treatment was associated with greater elbow pronation (OR = -3.10, 95% CI = [-4.96, -1.25], P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) and a lower complication rate (OR = 5.54, 95% CI = [1.79, 17.14], P = 0.42, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, conservative management of isolated Mason II radial head fractures yields favorable therapeutic outcomes with a low incidence of complications.

Is the 'safe zone' identified in preoperative computed tomography helpful for choosing optimal implant for fixation of radial head fracture?

The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical significance of the radiologic safe zone based on computed tomography and to compare the outcomes of three different implants for fixation of isolated radial head fractures. We retrospectively reviewed 367 patients who underwent internal fixation for isolated radial head fractures. We newly defined two subtypes of Mason type II fractures associated with the radiographic safe zone (IIA, two-part fracture allowing for safe fixation of plate; IIB, two-part fracture not allowing for safe fixation). 170 patients (CCS group, n = 82; HCS group, n = 31; plate group, n = 57) were investigated with no significant differences in demographics. The range of pronation and supination at 1 month postoperatively (P = 0.04 and P = 0.04) and the range of supination at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P = 0.03 and P = 0.03) were significantly smaller in the plate group. In Mason type IIB fractures, the average MEPS was higher in the CCS and HSC groups than in the plate group (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02). And the average DASH score was lower in the CCS and HCS groups (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01). Evaluation of the radiologic safe zone is potentially helpful in selecting better surgical fixation option. For type III fractures, 2.3-mm cortical screws would be a better option than Acutrak screws. Plates would not be suitable for type IIB radial head fractures.

PRP does not improve the objective outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been used in association with anterior cruciate ligament resconstruction (ACLR) to improve rehabilitation. The purpose was to systematically review the literature to compare the effects of PRP on ACLR in its objective and subjective outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed. Two independent reviewers included all the English language literature of patients undergoing primary ACLR with autograft combined with PRP. The outcomes analyzed were graft ligamentization (MRI), tibial and femoral tunnel widening (MRI), knee laxity, IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner activity scale and visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included with a total of 525 patients. PRP did not improve ligamentization of graft (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.01 [95% CI: - 0.37; 0.39]), did not lead to lesser tunnel widening (SMD: 0.71 [95% CI: - 0.12; 1.54]), or lead to lesser knee laxity (raw mean difference: 0.33 [95% CI: - 0.84; 0.19]). Although there was statistical significance for PRP effects on Lysholm score and VAS (p < 0.01), their magnitude was limited.

CONCLUSION

PRP showed no improvement in objective outcomes like ligamentization and less tunnel widening, while it showed just small improvements in terms of Lysholm, VAS and knee laxity. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to support a recommendation in favor of PRP and more research is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

The treatment of isolated Mason type II radial head fractures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the radial head represent the most common bony injury of the elbow in adults. Radial head fractures are classified according to Mason or one of its classification modifications. Current literature does not indicate consensus on whether to treat isolated stable type II radial head fracture patterns with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or nonoperatively, especially, when there is no mechanical block to motion.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the available literature searching electronic databases, that is, MEDLINE using the PubMed interface and Embase, for studies published between 2011 and 2020. The primary objective was to contrast the outcome scores of these 2 different study groups and the pitfalls accompanied with the 2 different approaches. The PRISMA guidelines were applied.

RESULTS

The literature search left 11 studies for inclusion, all but 1 retrospective in design, comprising 319 patients. A total of 218 patients (68.3%) were treated with ORIF and 101 patients (31.7%) were treated nonoperatively. Our findings indicate that ORIF does not provide better results when compared to nonoperatively treated patients concerning functional outcome parameters. Treatment success, defined as excellent or good results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score or the Broberg and Morrey score, among the patients treated with ORIF was 90.9%; 7.1% were in need of subsequent surgery and 5.2% had radiologic osteoarthritic changes of the radial column. In addition, 95.1% of the nonoperative cohort were treated successfully, and osteoarthritis was present in 11.9%. Mean follow-up period of the ORIF and the nonoperative cohort was 73 and 39 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ORIF and nonoperative treatment of isolated Mason type II radial head fractures provide comparably satisfactory functional outcomes, without significant differences. Consideration of age, activity level and potential risks is recommended before making any treatment decision. Subsequent surgery rates were higher for patients treated with ORIF than for those treated nonoperatively and should be discussed. However, development of osteoarthritis of the radial column appears to be more likely after nonoperative treatment. The study pool remains limited, and implications of this review should be handled with caution.