Mid- to long-term results after bipolar radial head arthroplasty

Burkhart, Klaus J.; Mattyasovszky, Stefan G.; Runkel, M.; Schwarz, Christina; Küchle, R.; Hessmann, M.; Rommens, Pol Maria; Müller, Lars Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.022

Cited by 160 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dislocation of components requiring revision was observed in two patients (12 %). The overall arthritis rate was higher compared to long-term results after monopolar prostheses as 47 % showed arthritic changes of the humeral capitellum and 70 % at the humeroulnar joint [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Midterm results (follow-up nine years) of 17 patients with implantation of bipolar RHP showed excellent and good results in 95 % [3]. Dislocation of components requiring revision was observed in two patients (12 %).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Later bipolar prostheses were designed to articulate with the capitulum humeri in a more anatomical fashion [7]. Short-and midterm results of bipolar prostheses show predominantly good results [3,4,19,25]. Dislocation of components and subluxation of the prosthetic head in up to 12 % must be considered as possible disadvantages as must the fact that most prostheses with a bipolar design are cemented in the radial shaft [3,4,13,24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Short-and midterm results of bipolar prostheses show predominantly good results [3,4,19,25]. Dislocation of components and subluxation of the prosthetic head in up to 12 % must be considered as possible disadvantages as must the fact that most prostheses with a bipolar design are cemented in the radial shaft [3,4,13,24]. The alleged disadvantages of monopolar metallic prostheses led to some further developments such as variations in stem design and surface coating to improve ingrowth [5,21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Monobloc radial head prostheses in complex elbow injuries: results after primary and secondary implantation

Katthagen

Jensen

Lill

et al. 2012

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Dislocations of components, loosening of the stem, overstuffing and removal in up to 24 % of common radial head prostheses (RHP) after implantation in complex elbow injuries signal the need for improvement. The latest biomechanical evidence shows advantages for monopolar designs. Clinical results after primary and secondary implantation of the newly designed press-fit monobloc monopolar RHP in cases of complex elbow injury are evaluated. Methods Twenty-nine patients [median age 60 years (29-86)] were followed up retrospectively for a median of 25 months (7-54) post-operatively. Subjective parameters, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Broberg and Morrey score (BMS), latest radiographs and complications were evaluated. Results MEPS and BMS averaged 87.2±12.9 and 81.1±11.9 points, respectively. No case of implant loosening was observed; the RHP had to be removed in one case (3 %). The overall complication and revision rate was higher after secondary (53 %) than after primary (19 %) implantation. Conclusions Satisfactory clinical results and low short-term removal rates emphasise the practicality of monobloc monopolar RHP. Differentiated treatment of complex elbow fracturedislocations is compulsory to avoid the need for secondary RHP implantation which carries a higher complication rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Monobloc radial head prostheses in complex elbow injuries: results after primary and secondary implantation

Katthagen

Jensen

Lill

et al. 2012

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, for irreparable fractures, there is increasing support for radial head arthroplasty as an effective treatment option [5,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Radial Head Fractures: Do Outcomes Differ Between Simple and Complex Injuries?

Pike

Grewal

Athwal

et al. 2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Radial head fractures can occur in isolation or in association with elbow and forearm injuries. Treatment options include nonoperative management, fragment or whole-head excision, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and radial head arthroplasty. However, the evidence supporting ORIF for repairable radial head fractures is inconclusive. Questions/purposes We compared patients undergoing ORIF for isolated radial head fractures or for radial head fractures associated with other fractures or elbow dislocations in terms of patient-related disability, presence of posttraumatic arthritis, complications, and rate of reoperation for capsular release. Methods Between 1997 and 2008, 52 patients underwent ORIF of the radial head for isolated radial head fractures (simple group) and 29 underwent ORIF for radial head fracture with an associated fracture or dislocation (complex group). General indications for ORIF included displaced radial fractures, large articular surface fragments, and greater than 2 mm of displacement and/or a mechanical block to forearm rotation or associated fractures or ligament injuries requiring surgery. Thirty-one patients (60%) in the simple group and 20 (69%) in the complex group were available for followup at a mean of 4 years (range, 1.0-9.5 years). We evaluated the patients using a validated self-reported pain and disability questionnaire (Patientrated Elbow Evaluation [PREE]). Records review included radiographic examination and assessment of major complications and secondary surgery rates for capsular release. Results With the numbers available, the groups were not different in terms of the mean PREE scores (8 versus 15 for the simple and complex groups, respectively; p = 0.13, lower values indicate lower pain and disability). The simple and complex groups were also not different with the numbers available in terms of major complications (13% versus 25%, respectively; p = 0.29) or secondary capsular release (3% versus 20%, respectively; p = 0.07). Conclusions At short term, we found no differences between patients treated with ORIF for isolated radial head fractures and those treated for radial head fractures in

show abstract