Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Management of Elbow Terrible Triad Injuries: A Comprehensive Review and Update

The "terrible triad" of the elbow, encompassing elbow dislocation, radial head fracture, and coronoid process fracture, remains a formidable challenge in orthopaedic practice. Typically, stabilizing structures in the elbow fail from lateral to medial through a posterolateral rotatory force after a fall onto an outstretched upper extremity. Surgery is often needed to repair the lateral ligamentous complex, replace or fix the radial head, possibly repair the anterior capsule or fix the coronoid, and consider medial repair or application of an internal versus external fixator. However, in some challenging cases persistent instability, complications, and loss of function may occur. Rehabilitation focuses on achieving early range of motion to prevent stiffness which can be common after these injuries. By integrating emerging approaches with established practices, this article aims to guide orthopaedic surgeons toward a fundamental understanding of terrible triad injuries and assist with informed management principles of these complex injuries.

Postoperative mobilization after terrible triad injury: systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Terrible triad injury is a complex injury of the elbow, involving elbow dislocation with associated fracture of the radial head, avulsion or tear of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament, and fracture of the coronoid. These injuries are commonly managed surgically with fixation or replacement of the radial head and repair of the collateral ligaments with or without fixation of the coronoid. Postoperative mobilization is a significant factor that may affect patient outcomes; however, the optimal postoperative mobilization protocol is unclear. This study aimed to systematically review the available literature regarding postoperative rehabilitation of terrible triad injuries to aid clinical decision making.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies with populations aged ≥16 years with terrible triad injury in which operative treatment was performed, a clear postoperative mobilization protocol was defined, and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was reported. Secondary outcomes were pain, instability, and range of motion (ROM). Postoperative mobilization was classified as either "early," defined as active ROM commencement before or up to 14 days, or "late," defined as active ROM commencement after 14 days.

RESULTS

A total of 119 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 11 (301 patients) were included in the final review. The most common protocols (6 studies) favored early mobilization, whereas 5 studies undertook late mobilization. Meta-regression analysis including mobilization as a covariate showed an estimated mean difference in the pooled mean MEPS between early and late mobilization of 6.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.2-12) with a higher pooled mean MEPS for early mobilization (MEPS, 91.2) than for late mobilization (MEPS, 85; P = .041). Rates of instability reported ranged from 4.5% to 19% (8%-11.5% for early mobilization and 4.5%-19% for late mobilization).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that early postoperative mobilization may confer a benefit in terms of functional outcomes following surgical management of terrible triad injuries without appearing to confer an increased instability risk. Further research in the form of randomized controlled trials between early and late mobilization is advised to provide a higher level of evidence.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Simple Versus Comminuted Radial Head Fractures: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

Current teaching suggests that modified Mason type III and IV fractures of the radial head involving more than 3 fragments should be treated with radial head arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of simple (2 or fewer intra-articular pieces) versus comminuted (3 or more intra-articular pieces) radial head fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 35 patients with modified Mason type III and IV fractures treated with ORIF. For the purpose of our study, simple fractures were defined as having 2 or fewer intra-articular fragments. Comminuted fractures were defined as having 3 or more intra-articular fragments. The primary outcomes were Broberg and Morrey rating system and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) scores. Reoperation rates and complications were also noted.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were evaluated, with a mean follow-up of 39.3 months. Thirteen patients had radial head fractures consisting of 2 or fewer intra-articular fragments. Twenty-two patients had radial head fractures consisting of 3 or more intra-articular fragments. Ages and follow-up times were similar in the 2 groups. Similar QuickDASH and Broberg and Morrey scores were seen when evaluating subgroups of 2, 3, and 4 fragment fractures. One patient from each group underwent revision surgery for symptomatic hardware.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, we found similar clinical outcome scores and reoperation rates between simple and comminuted radial head fractures treated with ORIF. Fractures with more than 3 intra-articular fragments can be considered for ORIF.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Improved Understanding of Traumatic Complex Elbow Instability

Recent advancements in surgical treatment have improved clinical results in complex traumatic elbow injury. There is increasing recognition that conservative treatment and inadequate surgical fixation carry high risk of substantial morbidity in many of these cases. Recent literature displays improved outcomes in complex elbow instability, in part, because of a more complete comprehension of the injury patterns and fixation methods. Prompt surgical management with stable internal fixation, which permits immediate postoperative mobilization, has been a consistent variable across the reports leading to more satisfactory outcomes. This applies to both acute and chronic cases.

[Terrible triad injuries]

The complex injury pattern of a posterior elbow dislocation with concomitant radial head and coronoid fractures is usually referred to as a terrible triad injury. Due to the concomitant compromise of several osteoligamentous structures of the elbow joint relevant for stability, these injuries pose a particularly major challenge to the treating trauma surgeons. For this reason, a careful preoperative analysis of all relevant injury components is mandatory in order to make an adequate treatment decision. In most cases, surgical treatment addressing all elements relevant for stability is necessary to achieve a stable and congruent elbow joint. Only this enables early functional follow-up treatment and minimizes the complication rate. Delayed or even insufficient treatment with persistent (sub)dislocation must be avoided at all costs, otherwise there is a high risk of serious posttraumatic functional disorders of the elbow with rapid progression of osteoarthritis.

Coronoid tip fractures in terrible triad injuries can be safely treated without fixation

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment of terrible triad injuries of the elbow (TTI) remains topic of ongoing discussion. The aim of this study was to determine whether different treatment strategies for coronoid tip fractures in terrible triad injuries influences the clinical and radiological results in a mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 62 patients with surgical treatment of a TTI including a coronoid tip fracture (37 women, 25 men; mean age, 51 years) were available for follow-up assessment after an average of 4.2 years (range 24-110 months). Thirteen patients had O'Driscoll 1.1 and 49 O'Driscoll 1.2 coronoid fractures, of which 26 were treated with and 36 without fixation. Range of motion, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score as well as grip strength were evaluated. Radiographs were analyzed for all participants.

RESULTS

No significant benefit in outcome variables could be detected between patients, whose coronoid had been fixed, compared to patients without fixation of the coronoid. In the coronoid fixation group, patients had mean outcome scores of 81.5 ± SD 19.1 (range 35-100) for MEPS, 31.0 ± SD 12.5 (range 11-48) for OES and 27.7 ± SD 23 (range 0-61) for DASH score, while in the no-fixation group, mean MEPS was 90.8 ± SD 16.5 (range 40-100), mean OES was 39.0 ± SD 10.4 (range 16-48) and mean DASH score was 14.5 ± SD 19.9 (range 0-48). Mean range of motion was 116° ± SD 21° (range 85-140°) versus 124° ± SD 24° (range 80-150°) in extension-flexion and 158° ± SD 23° (range 70-180°) versus 165° ± SD 12° (range 85-180°) in pronation-supination. Overall complication rate was 43.5% and revision rate was 24.2%, with no significant differences between both groups. Suboptimal results were more frequently seen in patients who had degenerative or heterotopic changes on their latest radiograph.

CONCLUSIONS

Sufficient elbow stability and good outcomes can be achieved in most patients with TTI and coronoid tip fractures. Although some bias in treatment allocation and group heterogeneity cannot be completely omitted, our analysis detected no significant benefit in outcome when the coronoid tip fracture has been fixed compared to patients with non-fixed coronoid tip. Therefore, we would suggest a no-fixation approach for coronoid tip fractures as primary treatment in TTI of the elbow.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

The comparative performance of radial head prostheses in patients younger than and older than 50 years: a systematic review

Background

Patient age may play a role in the surgeon's decision between radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation in radial head fracture treatment. Though large sample reports have detailed outcomes of radial head replacement for a mean age younger than 50 years, the age ranges are widely distributed. Patient outcomes are not uniform across a broad age distribution. Therefore, treatment decisions should be evaluated within the confines of a narrower age bracket. An understanding of clinical outcomes for radial head replacement in younger adults will provide value for guiding treatment decisions. We performed a systematic review comparing the clinical outcomes for radial head replacement in patients younger and older than 50 years of age. Further analysis compared outcomes between RHA performed as a primary procedure and as a secondary procedure in patients younger and older than 50 years of age.

Methods

PubMed was queried for articles which delineated individual patient data for age, surgical treatment, and appropriate outcome metrics. Articles were grouped based on patient age of under 50 and over 50 years and within those age groups, based on the arthroplasty being performed as a primary or as a secondary procedure.

Results

There were no significant differences between the under 50 and the over 50 groups for Mayo Elbow Performance Score (P = .79) and for implant revision/removal (P = .32). In the under 50 group, RHA done as a primary procedure had significantly higher (P = .001) mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score than RHA done as a secondary procedure. In the over 50 group, relative risk was 2.39 (95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.69) for implant revision/removal (P = .11) when comparing primary and secondary procedures.

Discussion

At a mean follow-up of 48 months, RHA in patients under the age of 50 years had satisfactory outcomes which were comparable to outcomes in patients over the age of 50 years. Across both age groups, arthroplasty performed as a primary procedure demonstrated superior outcomes compared to arthroplasty performed as a secondary procedure. Our findings provide guidance to surgeons who face a multifaceted decision when encountering younger adult patients with radial head fracture patterns that may not be amenable to fixation. Awareness of the age-specific performance of radial head implants is an important component of the decision for surgical treatment.

Elbow arthroplasty research methods, outcome domains, and instruments used in clinical outcome studies : a scoping review

AIMS

Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review.

RESULTS

A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148-1155.

Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation for the treatment of terrible triad injury of the elbow: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

Terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) is a severe high-energy injury to the elbow, mainly including elbow dislocation, coronoid fracture and radial head fracture. It is difficult to maintain the stability of the elbow joint using traditional conservative treatment, and there is a high risk of redislocation and various complications. Therefore, surgical treatment is currently advocated, mainly for repairing damaged ligaments and reconstructing bony structures, but there is still controversy about the treatment plan for the radial head. The current meta-analysis was conducted to compare the differences in efficacy of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of TTIE. Published literature related to the treatment (either ORIF or RHA) of TTIE was searched for in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. According to the search strategy, a total of 1,928 related publications were retrieved. The patient must have been diagnosed with TTIE and required surgery on the radial head. The interventions were RHA and ORIF. Non-case-control studies, case reports, review articles, letters, duplicate reports and literature without sufficient relevant data were excluded. The quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology and the Jadad scale. After data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using ReviewManager 5.4 software (Cochrane). A total of 15 studies involving 455 patients (189 who underwent RHA and 266 who underwent ORIF) were included. Range of motion (ROM) of the forearm (pronation-supination arc) after surgery in the RHA group [95% CI (0.28, 9.59); P=0.04] was found to be significantly superior to the ORIF group, with a lower incidence of complications [95% CI (0.22, 0.84); P=0.01]. However, there was no statistically significant difference for the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score nor for ROM of the elbow (flexion-extension arc). Overall, compared with the ORIF group, the RHA group had better forearm rotational ROM and fewer complications after surgery. Therefore, RHA was found to be superior to ORIF in the treatment of TTIE.

Does an Internal Joint Stabilizer and Standardized Protocol Prevent Recurrent Instability in Complex Persistent Elbow Instability?

BACKGROUND

The treatment of complex persistent elbow instability after trauma is challenging. Previous studies on treatments have reported varied surgical techniques, which makes it difficult to establish a therapeutic algorithm. Furthermore, the surgical procedures may not sufficiently restore elbow stability, even with an additional device, and a noted high rate of arthritis progression.While a recently developed internal joint stabilizer effectively treats elbow instability, its clinical application for complex persistent elbow instability is limited and the standardized protocol is not well described. Additionally, we want to know whether the arthritis progression will cause a negative impact on the functional outcomes of complex persistent elbow instability.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does treatment of complex persistent elbow instability with a hinged internal joint stabilizer and a standardized protocol prevent recurrent instability and other complications? (2) What are the pre- to postoperative improvements in pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM? (3) Is the development of post-traumatic arthritis associated with worse pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM?

METHODS

Between September 2014 and October 2019, we treated 22 patients for persistent dislocation or subluxation after initial treatment of traumatic elbow fracture-dislocations. Of those, we considered patients who were at least 20 years of age, with an interval of 6 weeks or more between the injury (initial treatment) and the index reconstructive procedure, which had been performed at our institute, as potentially eligible. During that time, we used an internal joint stabilizer with a standardized protocol for posttraumatic complex persistent elbow instability. We performed total elbow replacements in patients older than 50 years who had advanced elbow arthritis. Based on that, 82% (18 of 22) of patients were eligible; 14% (3 of 22) were excluded because total elbow replacements was undertaken, and another 5% (1 of 22) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 1 year (median 24 months [range 12 to 63]), leaving 64% (14 of 22) for analysis in this retrospective study. We treated 14 patients (14 elbows) with posttraumatic complex persistent elbow instability with an internal joint stabilizer and a standardized protocol that comprised debridement arthroplasty with ulnar neurolysis, restoration of bony and ligamentous (reattachment) structures, application of an internal joint stabilizer, and early rehabilitation. There were eight men and six women in this study, with a median (range) age of 44 years (21 to 68). The initial elbow fracture-dislocation injury pattern was a terrible triad injury in seven patients, a posterolateral rotatory injury in four patients, and a posterior Monteggia fracture in three patients. Preoperative and follow-up radiographs were reviewed for evidence of recurrent instability and arthritis. Complications such as wound infection, seroma, neurovascular injury, and hardware complications were ascertained through chart review. Preoperative and postoperative VAS score for pain, DASH, and Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS) were collected and compared. Furthermore, extension-flexion and supination-pronation arcs were collected by chart review. We divided the patients into two groups according to whether or not they developed posttraumatic arthritis. We then presented the differences between pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM. The hinged internal joint stabilizer was removed using another open procedure under general anesthesia 6 to 8 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

There were no recurrent instability during and after device removal. Seven patients developed complications, including wound infection, seroma, neurovascular injury, hardware complications, and heterotopic ossification. Two patients had complications related to internal joint stabilizers and three had complications linked to radial head prostheses. Median (range) preoperative to postoperative changes included decreased pain (VAS 5 [2 to 9] to 0 [0 to 3], difference of medians -5; p < 0.001), decreased disability (DASH 41 [16 to 66] to 7 [0 to 46], difference of medians -34; p < 0.001), improved function (MEPS 60 [25 to 70] to 95 [65 to 100], difference of medians 35; p < 0.001), improved extension-flexion arc (40° [10° to 70°] to 113° [75° to 140°], difference of medians 73°; p < 0.001), and supination-pronation arc (78° [30° to 165°] to 148° [70° to 175°], difference of medians 70°; p < 0.001). Between patients with and without development of post-traumatic arthritis, there were no differences in postoperative pain (VAS 0 [0 to 3] to 0 [0 to 1], difference of medians 0; p = 0.17), disability (DASH 7 [0 to 46] to 7 [0 to 18], difference of medians 0; p = 0.40), function (MEPS 80 [65 to 100] to 95 [75 to 100], difference of medians 15; p = 0.79), extension-flexion arc (105° [75° to 140°] to 115° [80° to 125°], difference of medians 10°; p = 0.40), and supination-pronation arc (155° [125° to 175°] to 135° [70° to 160°], difference of medians -20°; p < 0.18).

CONCLUSION

In this small, retrospective study, we found that an internal joint stabilizer with a standardized treatment protocol could maintain concentric reduction while allowing early functional motion, and that it could improve clinical outcomes for patients with complex persistent elbow instability. However, patients must be counseled that the complications related to the radial head prostheses may occur, and that the benefits of early motion must compensate for an additional removal procedure and the risk of seroma formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Patient and Surgeon Factors Associated With Prosthetic Replacement Rather Than With Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of a Radial Head Fracture

Background: The decision between radial head arthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation in the context of a terrible triad elbow fracture-dislocation is debated. This study investigated both surgeon and patient factors associated with surgeons' recommendations to use arthroplasty. Methods: One hundred fifty-two surgeon members of the Science of Variation Group participated. Surgeons were asked to complete an online survey that included surgeon demographics and 16 patient scenarios. The patient scenarios were randomized using 2 patient variables and 2 anatomical variables. Multilevel logistic mixed regression analysis was performed to identify surgeon and patient variables associated with recommendations for radial head arthroplasty. Results: We found that radial head replacement was recommended in 38% of the scenarios. Scenarios with older patients, with fractures of the whole head, and those involving 3 fracture fragments were independently associated with radial head replacement. Conclusion: We found that most surgeons recommended radial head fracture fixation rather than arthroplasty. Surgeons were more likely to recommend fixation for younger patients with partial articular fractures or with fractures with 3 or fewer fracture fragments. It seems that surgeons are uneasy about using a prosthesis in a young active patient.

Surgical treatment of terrible triad of the elbow

Terrible triad of the elbow associates posterior dislocation, radial head fracture and coronoid process fracture. It is a complex trauma, associating severe bone and ligament lesions, with high more-or-less long-term risk of residual instability, stiffness, pain and osteoarthritis. During the last 20 years, pathologic, biomechanical and clinical knowledge has greatly progressed. Prevention of these severe complications requires initial understanding of the lesion mechanism and precise analysis of all lesions. Surgery aims to restore perfect stability by sequential anatomic repair, enabling early mobilization to prevent onset of stiffness. The aims of the present paper were to summarize the anatomic and pathophysiological bases, highlight the crucial importance of the humeroradial column and lateral collateral ligament, and to determine the importance of the coronoid process. Some aspects of treatment are controversial: systematic medial collateral ligament repair, or use of an articulated external fixator. Finally, we propose a simple algorithm to guide repair.

Surgical treatment of the radial head is crucial for the outcome in terrible triad injuries of the elbow

AIMS

To evaluate the outcomes of terrible triad injuries (TTIs) in mid-term follow-up and determine whether surgical treatment of the radial head influences clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

Follow-up assessment of 88 patients with TTI (48 women, 40 men; mean age 57 years (18 to 82)) was performed after a mean of 4.5 years (2.0 to 9.4). The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score were evaluated. Radiographs of all patients were analyzed. Fracture types included 13 Mason type I, 16 type II, and 59 type III. Surgical treatment consisted of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in all type II and reconstructable type III fractures, while radial head arthroplasty (RHA) was performed if reconstruction was not possible.

RESULTS

At follow-up the mean MEPS was 87.1 (20 to 100); mean OES, 36.9 (6 to 48); and mean DASH score, 18.6 (0 to 90). Mean movement was 118° (30° to 150°) for extension to flexion and 162° (90° to 180°) for pronation to supination. The overall reoperation rate was 24%, with nine ORIF, ten RHA, and two patients without treatment to the radial head needing surgical revision. When treated with RHA, Mason type III fractures exhibited significantly inferior outcomes. Suboptimal results were also identified in patients with degenerative or heterotopic changes on their latest radiograph. In contrast, more favourable outcomes were detected in patients with successful radial head reconstruction after Mason type III fractures.

CONCLUSION

Using a standardized protocol, sufficient elbow stability and good outcomes can be achieved in most TTIs. Although some bias in treatment allocation, with more severe injuries assigned to RHA, cannot be completely omitted, treatment of radial head fractures may have an independent effect on outcome, as patients subjected to RHA showed significantly inferior results compared to those subjected to reconstruction, in terms of elbow function, incidence of arthrosis, and postoperative complications. As RHA showed no apparent advantage in Mason type III injuries between the two treatment groups, we recommend reconstruction, providing stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1620-1628.