Abstract
Background
Radial head fractures are the commonest fractures involving the elbow. The goals of treatment are to restore stability, preserve motion, and maintain the relative length of the radius. Fortunately, most simple uncomplicated fractures can be treated non-operatively. Choosing between fixation and radial head replacement for comminuted fractures remains difficult. Excision of radial head fractures is not an ideal option in unstable elbow injuries. The purpose of this systematic review was to search for and critically appraise articles directly comparing functional outcomes and complications for fixation (open reduction internal fixation, ORIF) versus arthroplasty for comminuted radial head fractures (Mason type 3) in adults.
Method
A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases using specific search terms and limits was conducted. Strict eligibility criteria were applied to stringently screen resultant articles. Three comparative studies were identified and reviewed.
Results
Three comparative studies were identified and reviewed: two studies found significantly better Broberg & Morrey functional scores after replacement compared with ORIF in Mason type 3 fractures. The third study found no significant differences in Mayo functional score or range of motion, but did find that grip strength was better after ORIF. Complication rates were too heterogenous for conclusion.
Conclusion
Fixation with good reduction may be attempted in unstable Mason type 3 fractures, and arthroplasty may be considered if this is not possible. Further randomised comparative trials are required to clarify the decision-making between fixation and replacement. Functional outcomes and complications were conflicting in the studies included here. Ideally, treatment decision should take into account elbow stability and degree of comminution.
