Radial Head Fracture

Riet, Roger P. van; Morrey, B.F.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-34169-1.00038-3

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Radial head fractures make up approximately 3% of all fractures and they are the most common type of elbow fracture in adults [1,2]. These fractures usually result from a fall on an outstretched arm with the forearm pronated; they range from simple fractures to those associated with complex elbow instability [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mason type III radial head fractures treated by anatomic radial head arthroplasty: Is this a safe treatment option?

Tarallo

Mugnai

Rocchi

et al. 2017

Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mason type III radial head fractures treated by anatomic radial head arthroplasty: Is this a safe treatment option?

Tarallo

Mugnai

Rocchi

et al. 2017

Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also involved in transferring 60% of axial load force through the elbow during flexion. Radial head stabilizing function becomes relevant in Mason type III RHFs associated with ligamentous injuries where instability is a complication such as in complex elbow dislocation, terrible triad injury and Essex–Lopresti fracture [ 23 ]. Operative treatment is recommended for Mason type III fractures, although the optimum surgical solution remains still object of debate [ 9 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mason type III fractures of the radial head: ORIF, resection or prosthetic replacement?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study focused on a comparison of mid-term clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes of adults treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head prosthesis (RHP) and resection (RHR). Methods The retrospective evaluation concerned 47 surgically treated patients after a mean follow-up of 53 months. All patients were grouped according to the surgical procedure performed: 15 in the RHP group, 16 in the ORIF group and 16 in the RHR group. At the follow-up, outcome assessment was based on radiographs, range of motion (ROM) and functional rating scores. Results Patients treated by RHR had significantly higher mean age and shorter operation time than other two groups. Compared to ROM, flexion, extension and pronation were significantly worse in patients treated by ORIF than those in the RHP group and the RHR group. Supination was significantly better in the RHP group. However, no statistical differences were observed in functional rating scores among the three groups. Regarding complications, instability was the only cause of revision surgery in the RHP group and the RHR group. On the other hand, the ORIF group revision rate was 50% and secondary displacement was the most frequent cause of failure. Conclusion The ORIF group did not show good results with greater elbow stiffness and higher revision rate than the other two techniques. RHR may be suitable for elderly patients with lower functional demands as it reported good clinical results and reduced operation time.

show abstract

Radial Head Fracture

Cited by 2 publications

References 48 publications

Mason type III radial head fractures treated by anatomic radial head arthroplasty: Is this a safe treatment option?

Mason type III radial head fractures treated by anatomic radial head arthroplasty: Is this a safe treatment option?

Mason type III fractures of the radial head: ORIF, resection or prosthetic replacement?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About