Complications after radial head arthroplasty: a comparison between short-stemmed bipolar and monopolar long-stemmed osteointegrative rigidly fixed prostheses

Mid-term outcome following radial head arthroplasty in acute trauma: risk factors for poor outcome

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to evaluate the outcomes of a single type of radial head implant in a large cohort of patients at mid-term follow-up and to determine the associated risk factors for inferior functional outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective follow-up assessment of 65 patients (33 women and 32 men; mean age, 53.3 years [range, 22-81 years]) who underwent radial head arthroplasty (RHA) for acute trauma between 2012 and 2018, after a minimum follow-up period of 3 years. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Oxford Elbow Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and Mayo Modified Wrist Score were evaluated, and all available radiographs were analyzed. All complications and revision procedures were assessed. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify potential risk factors for a poor outcome following RHA.

RESULTS

After an average follow-up period of 4.1 years (range, 3-9.4 years), the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 77.2 (standard deviation [SD], 18.9); mean Oxford Elbow Score, 32.0 (SD, 10.6); mean Mayo Modified Wrist Score, 74.6 (SD, 13.7); and mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, 29.0 (SD, 21.2). Average range of motion measured 10° (SD, 15°) in extension, 125° (SD, 14°) in flexion, 81° (SD, 14°) in pronation, and 63° (SD, 24°) in supination. The overall complication and reoperation rates were 38.5% and 30.8%, respectively, with severe elbow stiffness being the most common reason for revision. Patient age >50 years, the use of an external fixator, the presence of accompanying medial collateral ligament injuries, and the development of higher-grade osteoarthritis were associated with a poor outcome.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory medium-term outcomes can be achieved using a monopolar, long-stemmed RHA in patients with acute trauma. However, complication and revision rates are high, frequently leading to inferior outcome scores. Additionally, a higher patient age, the use of an external fixator, the presence of accompanying medial collateral ligament injuries, and the occurrence of higher-grade osteoarthritis were associated with a poor outcome; these factors should raise awareness by the treating trauma surgeon.

Radial neck osteolysis after radial head replacement: Functional impact and risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Onset of radial neck osteolysis (RNO) has been reported after radial head replacement (RHR), but data are sparse regarding impact and risk factors. We therefore conducted a retrospective study, 1) to quantify RNO after RHR, 2) to assess clinical and radiological impact, and 3) to identify risk factors.

HYPOTHESIS

RNO prevalence is high, but functional impact is limited.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A single-center retrospective study included all patients undergoing RHR for acute radial head fracture between 2008 and 2017: 53 patients, with a mean age of 53.8±15.7 years [range, 21-85 years]. At a minimum 2 years' follow-up, patients were assessed clinically on joint range of motion and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and radiologically on standard radiographs. Associations between RNO and various parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

At a mean 46.7±19.8 months' follow-up [range, 24-84 months], RNO was found in 54.7% of cases (29/53), with mean 4.0 ±2.8mm distal extension [range, 1.2-13.4mm], corresponding to 13.4±7.3% of stem height [range, 2.7-27.7%]. RNO at last follow-up was not significantly associated with reduced flexion-extension (121.9° versus 114.0°; p=0.11), pronation-supination (152.6° versus 138.3°; p=0.25) or MEPS (84.7 versus 84.8; p=0.97), or with higher rates of postoperative complications (11/29 (37.9%) versus 7/24 (29.2%); p=0.782) or surgical revision (11/29 (37.9%) versus 10/24 (41.7%); p=0.503). RNO was significantly associated with cementless fixation (19/29 (65.5%) versus 7/24 (29.2%); p=0.01), unipolar prosthesis (21/29 (72.4%) versus 7/24 (29.2%); p=0.002), high filling-ratio, whether proximal (88% versus 77%; p=0.002), middle (84% versus 75%; p=0.007) or distal (69% versus 59%; p=0.032), and shorter radial stem (33.2mm versus 46.3mm; p=0.011). No demographic parameters showed significant association with RNO at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

RNO was frequent after RHR, but without clinical or radiological impact in the present series. The risk factors identified here argue for involvement of stress shielding.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, cohort study.

Efficacy and safety of monopolar versus bipolar radial head arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radial head replacement is the main line of treating complex unstable elbow injuries. Radial head prostheses are either monopolar or bipolar. The difference between both designs in patients' clinical outcomes and postoperative complications is not yet clear. So, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monopolar vs. bipolar implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched to identify studies comparing monopolar and bipolar implants. Data on clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, revision, and removal rates were extracted.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 591 patients (365 monopolar and 226 bipolar). Both prostheses achieved similar ranges of motion; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and visual analog scale for pain. Incidence of postoperative complications was also similar between both designs. Revision and removal rates were 24%, 8% and 29%, 14% for monopolar and bipolar implants, respectively, but no statistically significant difference could be detected.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was found between monopolar and bipolar radial head prostheses in terms of efficacy and safety. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the superiority of one design over the other.

Modular knee arthrodesis secures limb, mobility, improves quality of life, and leads to high infection control in periprosthetic knee infection, when revision knee arthroplasty is not an option

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the outcome of knee arthrodesis versus hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients suffering from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

104 patients with PJI were treated using a two-stage exchange of failed TKA. In case of non reconstructable bone loss or loss of extension mechanism, a modular intramedullary arthrodesis nail was used for reimplantation [Knee Arthrodesis Module (KAM); n = 52]. The control group was retrospectively matched treated using a hinged revision TKA [Rotating Hinge Knee (RHK); n = 52]. PJI remission rates, functional outcome (WOMAC; KSS) and quality of life (SF-12), as well as comorbidities and pain were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean age was 72.5 years. Charlson Comorbidity Index was higher in the KAM group (3.3 vs. 2.8). PJI remission rate was 89.4% (88.5% vs. 90.4%, respectively). In case of reinfection, implant retention was mostly possible in the RHK group (7.7%), whereas amputations were mostly performed in the KAM group (9.6%). Significant pain reduction (VAS 7.9-2.8) was achieved in both groups. Walking distance was significantly reduced in the KAM groups versus the RHK group (504 vs. 1064 m). WOMAC and KSS function scores were significantly reduced in the KAM group (25 vs. 40 and 35 vs. 64). Only moderate reduction in quality of life in the KAM group was observed (SF-12 physical: 34 vs. 40; SF-12 mental: 51 vs. 56) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthrodesis using a modular intramedullary nail is an alternative for limb salvage, pain reduction, and preservation of quality of life and everyday mobility, when revision TKA is not an option. This study presents the largest number of case, comparing the outcome after performing an arthrodesis versus hinged TKA after septic failed TKA.

Mid-term clinical outcome comparison of long-stemmed monopolar osseointegrated and short-stemmed bipolar radial head prostheses

INTRODUCTION

Comparative data to guide implant choice for radial head replacements are lacking. Here, we compared the clinical results achieved using two different types of radial head prostheses.

METHODS

Data from patients with comminuted radial head fractures (n = 66), who underwent radial head arthroplasty with either short-stemmed bipolar (n = 31, Group 1: rHead Small Bone Innovations/USA) or monopolar long-stemmed osseointegrated rigidly fixed (n = 35, Group 2: MoPyC Tornier/France) prostheses, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were followed-up for an average of 42 months (16-64 months). Range of elbow motion, elbow stability, grip strength, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain were measured, and functional outcome assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Broberg-Morrey Score. Complications were analyzed and revision surgeries recorded.

RESULTS

Most patients achieved good/excellent results for all assessed outcome variables, with no significant differences between the two implant groups; however, regardless of the prosthesis type, a mean extension deficit of 18.5° ± 1.7° remained at latest follow-up. Although complication and surgical revision rates were comparable (bipolar, 23%; monopolar, 18%), significantly more bipolar prostheses were explanted because of painful loosening (16% vs. 3%; p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Good to excellent mid-term results for radial head arthroplasty of comminuted radial head fractures can be achieved using both a bipolar and a monopolar radial head implant; however, the monopolar implant may be preferable, as it had a lower rate of painful loosening. Extension deficit occurs regularly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Retrospective comparative treatment study.

Radial head arthroplasty: fixed-stem implants are not all equal-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Numerous fixed-stem implants exist for radial head arthroplasty; therefore, we conducted a systematic review to compare the safety and efficacy of different types of fixed-stem implants.

Methods

We conducted a literature search, updated from a previous systematic review, to identify studies evaluating a fixed-stem radial head arthroplasty implant for any indication. We extracted data on revision rates, specific complications, and functional scores. We pooled results across studies using a random-effects method, using proportions for dichotomous data and mean values for functional scores. We analyzed outcomes by indication and specific implant.

Results

We included 31 studies. Studies included patients with radial head fractures only, terrible-triad injuries, or Essex-Lopresti injuries or included a heterogeneous population. We identified 15 different fixed-stem implants. The results of our analysis revealed that patients with terrible-triad injuries may be at an increased risk of revision and instability and patients with Essex-Lopresti injuries may be at an increased risk of arthritis, capitellar erosion, and osteolysis. After removing these outliers and pooling the results by specific device, we observed variability across devices in the rates of revision, arthritis, capitellar erosion, instability, and osteolysis, as well as in functional scores.

Conclusion

Differences were seen across different implants in revision rates, certain complications, and functional scores. This study highlighted that these devices should be evaluated within the context of the patient population under examination, as patients with Essex-Lopresti or terrible-triad injuries may demonstrate worse outcomes relative to those with a fracture only.