Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 483 - 483
1 Sep 2012
Moldovan R Lamas C Natera L Castellanos J Dominguez E Monllau J
Full Access

Purpose. Evaluation of our experience on the treatment of comminuted, radial head fractures, and of the outcomes of pyrocarbon prosthetic replacement in such cases. Materials and Methods. We evaluated 47 cases of prosthetic replacement, performed from May 2003 to July 2008. There were 18 males and 29 females with an average follow-up of 48 months (12 to 60). The Hotchkiss classification was used to characterize the fractures. The indicators for the procedure were type III fractures in 27 cases, type IV fractures in 10 cases, comminuted radial head fractures (associated with disruption in medial collateral ligament) in 3 cases, Monteggia variant in 5 cases, and Essex Lopresti in 2 cases. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and the Visual Analog Scales (VAS) of pain, joint motion, and stability. Results. The mean VAS score for elbow pain was 1 (0.5–2.1). Patients showed an average arch of motion from 6 degrees to 140, with 75 degrees of pronation, and 67 of supination. By the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, 42 patients had good to excellent results, 3 fair, and 2 poor. The complications that we have encountered were: implant dislocations (2 cases), elbow stiffness (1), implant dissociation (1), stem rupture (1), and transient PIN palsy (2 cases with complete recovery of nervous function at 5 and 8 weeks). There was no persistent instability, infection, synosthosis, severe degenerative changes, or impingement. Conclusion. The pyrocarbon implants are a good treatment option in complicated, radial head fractures, but the outcome depends on the severity of the initial fracture and the associated lesions. We have also encountered a tendency towards overestimating the prosthesis size, causing restriction of motion, impingement, overstuffing, or dislocation. For these results we are now using the non-modular prosthesis in our center, but further studies are required


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 577 - 577
1 Sep 2012
Rochwerger A Gaillard C Tayeb A Louis M Helix M Curvale G
Full Access

Introduction. The action of the radial head in the stability of the elbow is currently admitted. Its conservation is not always possible in complex fractures. The association with a posterolateral dislocation of the elbow leads to a higher risk of instability of the elbow joint and also at a longer term to degenerative changes. Some authors recommend the use of metallic radial head implant, acting as a spacer. The results seems encouraging but should the resection arthroplasty associated with the repair of the medial collateral ligament be abandoned?. Material and methods. In an amount of 35 consecutive patients who were taken in charge for an elbow dislocation 26 were included in this retrospective study, 13 of them had the association of a dislocation and a fracture of the radial head. In all 13 cases the radial head was considered as inadequate with a conservative treatment and was resected. The patients were assessed clinically according to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Mayo elbow performance index with a mean follow-up of 13 years (ranging from 5 to 15). The degenerative changes were assessed on plan × rays and an additional axial view according to the 4 stages described by Morrey. Results. No redislocation occurred. According to the Broberg/Morrey index 92% of the patients were considered as having a good result. They returned to work with no hindering. Signs of osteoarthritis grade 1 or 2 were observed and were clinically well tolerated. There was no difference for this item between the patients who conserved their radial head and those who sustained a resection. All patients were satisfied although they were protecting their joint against overuse while working. Discussion. The studies about the use of prosthesis of the radial head offer similar functional results. Degenerative changes on the trochleo ulnar joint are identical in all type of treatment. In order to prevent stiffness in the elbow joint an early post operative rehabilitation is recommended, it justifies a surgical stabilization associated with the use of an adapted dynamic splint. Conclusion. In case of elbow dislocation with a fracture of the radial head when its preservation is impossible, the resection without any prosthetic replacement remains a reasonable option if associated with a repair of the medial collateral ligament. At long term the functional results are still good with mild signs of osteoarthritis eliminating ipso facto the problem of an implant survivorship


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 2 | Pages 151 - 159
1 Feb 2013
Duckworth AD McQueen MM Ring D

Most fractures of the radial head are stable undisplaced or minimally displaced partial fractures without an associated fracture of the elbow or forearm or ligament injury, where stiffness following non-operative management is the primary concern. Displaced unstable fractures of the radial head are usually associated with other fractures or ligament injuries, and restoration of radiocapitellar contact by reconstruction or prosthetic replacement of the fractured head is necessary to prevent subluxation or dislocation of the elbow and forearm. In fractures with three or fewer fragments (two articular fragments and the neck) and little or no metaphyseal comminution, open reduction and internal fixation may give good results. However, fragmented unstable fractures of the radial head are prone to early failure of fixation and nonunion when fixed. Excision of the radial head is associated with good long-term results, but in patients with instability of the elbow or forearm, prosthetic replacement is preferred.

This review considers the characteristics of stable and unstable fractures of the radial head, as well as discussing the debatable aspects of management, in light of the current best evidence.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:151–9.