Why does radial head arthroplasty fail today? A systematic review of recent literature

The impact of anatomic alignment on radiocapitellar pressure following radial head arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The incidence of radial head fractures is increasing, and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is being more frequently used as treatment for irreparable fractures. Our objective was to compare radiocapitellar pressure between the native joint and 2 radial head prosthesis conditions: (1) a prosthetic head that was aligned to the forearm axis of rotation and (2) the same prosthesis with an axisymmetric nonaligned head.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric specimens received a pressfit radial head prosthesis (Align; Skeletal Dynamics) for both prosthetic testing conditions. Anatomic alignment (AL) was defined as the prosthetic head aligned to the forearm axis of rotation. Axisymmetric alignment (AX) was defined as the prosthetic radial head aligned to the axis of the prosthetic stem. Axial load was applied with the elbow in extension and the forearm pronated. Data were collected using a Tekscan 4000 sensor.

RESULTS

The mean pressure in the AL and AX groups were significantly higher than the mean pressure in the native joint. Compared with the native joint, the mean pressure was 19% higher in the AL group and 56% higher in the AX group. Peak pressure beyond 5 MPa occurred in 0 specimens in the native joint group, in 1 specimen (10%) in the AL group, and in 5 specimens (50%) in the AX group.

DISCUSSION

Our results demonstrated that a pressfit radial head prosthesis aligned with the forearm axis of rotation yields capitellar pressures that were more similar to the native condition than a nonaligned pressfit prosthesis. These findings suggest that anatomic alignment may optimize capitellar wear properties, improving the long-term durability of radial head arthroplasty.

Radial head arthroplasty diameter impact on elbow kinematics evaluated by dynamic radiostereometric analysis

Purpose

Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) reestablishes elbow stability after complex radial head fracture, but complication rates are high, possibly due to inappropriate implant sizing. Knowledge of impact of radial head implant diameter on elbow kinematics is limited and warranted. This study evaluated elbow kinematics of different radial head implant diameters after RHA using dynamic radiostereometric analysis (dRSA).

Methods

Eight human donor arms were examined with dRSA during elbow flexion with the forearm in unloaded neutral position, and in supinated- and pronated position without and with 10N either varus or valgus load, respectively. Elbow kinematics were examined before and after RHA with head diameters of anatomical size, -2 mm (undersized), and +2 mm (oversized). The ligaments were kept intact by use of step-cut humerus osteotomy for repeated RHA exchange. Bone models were obtained from CT, and by AutoRSA software bone models were matched with dRSA recordings. The elbow kinematics were described using anatomical coordinate systems.

Results

Compared to the native radial head during elbow flexion, the anatomical sized RHA shifted 2.0 mm in ulnar direction during unloaded pronated forearm position. The undersized RHA shifted 1.5 mm in posterior direction and 2.1 mm in ulnar direction during unloaded pronated forearm position and increased the varus angle by 2.4° during supinated loaded forearm position. The oversized RHA shifted 1.6 mm in radial direction during loaded supinated forearm position.

Conclusions

The anatomically sized RHA should be preferred as it maintained native elbow kinematics the best. The kinematic changes with oversized and undersized RHA diameters were small, suggesting forgiveness for the RHA diameter size.

Level of Evidence

Level III.

Revision of Failed Radial Head Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) may be indicated in cases of prosthesis loosening and malposition. Inherent difficulties in revision surgery include poor bone stock and disrupted soft tissue envelope. Although cases of RHA used for revision of failed RHA are rare, there is reasonable expectation for increasing frequency of these cases due to the increasing incidence of primary RHA. Furthermore, there is an increasing demand for postoperative recovery of function; thus, surgeons may consider revising a failed RHA to a new RHA. We report on series of failed RHA which were revised to a new radial head prosthesis.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed at multiple institutions for a single radial head prosthesis used for revision of a failed radial head prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up.

RESULTS

Across 11 patients at a mean follow-up of 45.1 months, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 81.7; mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were 24.4; and mean Visual Analog Scale for pain was 0.6. Radiographic analysis yielded no evidence of capitellar wear or stem loosening.

CONCLUSION

A radial head prosthesis can produce satisfactory results when used for revision of a failed prosthesis. Inherent difficulties in revision surgery include the potential for reduced bone stock and a disrupted soft tissue envelope. Elements of prosthesis design which may contribute to effectively managing revision surgery include a long stem with in-growth surface and prosthetic head alignment to the axis of forearm rotation.

Midterm outcomes of a short-cemented bipolar radial head arthroplasty, in a cohort of 56 cases with minimum 2-years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Radial head prostheses are used in comminuted radial head fractures for elbow stabilisation when reduction and internal fixation is not possible. Several implant designs exist, but no large series exist about a short-cemented and bipolar implant.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis was that this prosthesis design shows good clinical, functional, and radiological results, with acceptable rate of complications.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective study included the prostheses with bipolar design and short-cemented stem (Evolutive™), with a minimum 2-years follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All prosthesis implanted in our Traumatology Center were included, with minimum 2-years follow-up. The evaluation consisted of a clinical and functional evaluation, associated with an independent radiographic assessment. All complications were listed, as long as rate and reasons for implant removal.

RESULTS

Fifty-six implants were studied with a mean follow-up of 64.9months (24 to 119). Fifty-three cases were acute injuries with 16% isolated radial head fractures and 76% complex elbow injury such as ulno-humeral, radio-ulnar or longitudinal forearm instability. Fifty (89%) implants were still in place at last follow-up. The main reason for implant removal was during arthrolysis procedure. Ranges of motion were: 126° in flexion, 9° of extension loss, 76° of pronation and 79° of supination. Mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index was 84.1 with 72% of excellent or good results, and the median quick-DASH was rated 18.2. Radiographic evaluation found 12% significant ulno-humeral arthtitis, 64% capitellar osteopenia and 12% loosening. We recorded 5% of implant-related complications.

DISCUSSION

The short-cemented stem bipolar radial head prosthesis presents clinical and functional results similar to other radial head prosthesis with low incidence of elbow arthritis, when treating both isolated radial head fracture or complexes elbow injury. This implant should therefore be valid for treating comminuted radial head fractures in all types of traumatological injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; Retrospective cohort study.

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.

Silicone radial head prostheses revisited: do they have a role in today's practice? A systematic review of literature on clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Silicone radial head prostheses (SRHP) are considered obsolete due to reports of frequent failure and destructive silicone-induced synovitis. Considering the good outcomes of modern non-radial silicone joint implants, the extent of scientific evidence for this negative view is unclear. The aim of this research was to systematically analyze the clinical evidence on complications and outcomes of SRHP and how SRHP compare to both non-SRHP and silicone prostheses of other joints.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted through the Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases.

RESULTS

Eight cohort studies were included, consisting of 142 patients and follow-up periods ranging from 23 months to 8 years. Average patient satisfaction was 86%, range of 71%-100%, and 58 complications were seen, but no cases of synovitis. These outcomes were in line with non-SRHP. Four case series with 11 cases of synovitis were found, all due to implant fractures years to decades after implantation. Six systematic reviews of currently used non-radial silicone joint implants showed excellent outcomes with low complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Since SRHP have satisfactory clinical results and an acceptable complication rate when selecting a patient group in suitable condition for surgical indications, it is considered that SRHP can still be chosen as a potential surgical treatment method in current clinical practice.

Proximal ulna morphology in various pediatric population age groups: proximal ulna dorsal angulation (PUDA) and olecranon tip-to-apex (TTA) distance

PURPOSE

To measure proximal ulna dorsal angulation (PUDA) and olecranon tip-to-apex distance (TTA) in pediatric population to aid surgeons with data for proximal ulna fractures fixation.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the hospital radiographic database. All elbow radiographs were identified and after implementing exclusion criteria, included were 95 patients aged 0-10; 53 patients aged 11-14; and 53 patients aged 15-18. PUDA was defined as the angle between lines placed on the "flat spot" of the olecranon and the dorsal edge of the ulnar shaft and TTA as the distance between the tip of the olecranon to the apex of angulation. Two evaluators performed measurements independently.

RESULTS

In age group 0-10, mean PUDA was 7.53°, range 3.8-13.7, 95% CI 7.16-7.91, while mean TTA was 22.04 mm, range 8.8-50.5, 95% CI 19.92-24.17. In age group 11-14, mean PUDA was 4.99°, range 2.5-9.3, 95% CI (4.61-5.37), while mean TTA was 37.41 mm, range 16.5-66.6, 95% CI (34.91-39.90). In age group 15-18, mean PUDA was 5.18°, range 2.9-8.1, 95% CI (4.75-5.61), while mean TTA was 43.79 mm, range 24.5-79.4, 95% CI (41.38-46.19). PUDA was negatively correlated with age (r = - 0.56, p < 0.001), while TTA was positively correlated with age (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). Reliability levels of 0.81-1 or 0.61-0.80 were achieved for most of intra- and inter-rater reliabilities besides two levels of 0.41-60 and one of 0.21-0.40.

CONCLUSION

The main study finding is that in most cases mean age-group values may serve as a template for proximal ulna fixation. There are some cases in which X-ray of contralateral elbow may provide surgeon with a better template.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Early aseptic loosening of a press-fit radial head prosthesis - A case series of 6 patients

OBJECTIVE

Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is the principal treatment option for comminuted radial head (RH) fractures. Here, we present six cases of failed RHA using a modular monopolar press-fit RHA that was subsequently withdrawn from the market because it was associated with a high incidence of loosening.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from six patients who had received Radial Head Prothesis System^TM at our centre between July 2015 and June 2016. The average follow-up was 40 months.

RESULTS

Aseptic loosening of the stem affected five (83%) of the six RHA. Four of these were symptomatic and RHA removal was performed. For these patients, the pain subsided and their elbow range of motion (ROM) improved.

CONCLUSION

While the ideal design for an RHA is still debatable, RHA is an efficient treatment option that restores elbow stability and function after a comminuted RH fracture. Importantly, removal of the prosthesis is an effective remedy following RHA associated elbow pain and decreased ROM.

After failed radial head arthroplasty, what are the options? Risk factors and results of revisions in a multicenter study

Introduction

Few multicenter studies have analyzed the outcome of revision surgery of radial head arthroplasties (RHA) in the medium term follow up. The objective is twofold: to determine the factors associated with revision of RHAs and to analyze the results of revision with 2 surgical techniques: isolated removal of the RHA or revision with a new RHA (R-RHA).

Hypothesis

There are associated factors of RHA revision and RHA revision results in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients were included in this multicenter retrospective study, with all surgical indications for initial RHA being traumatic/post-traumatic. The mean age was 47 ± 13 years with a mean follow-up of 70 ± 48 months. This series included two groups: the isolated RHA removal group (n = 17) and the revision RHA with new radial head prosthesis (R-RHA) group (n = 11). Evaluation was clinical and radiological with univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

Two factors associated with RHA revision were identified: a pre-existing capitellar lesion (p = 0.047) and a RHA placed for a secondary indication (<0.001). Revision for all 28 patients resulted in improved pain (pre-op Visual Analog Scale 4.7 ± 3 vs. post-op 1.57 ± 2.2, p < 0.001), mobilities (pre-op flexion 118 ± 20 vs. post-op 130 ± 13, p = 0.03; pre-op extension -30 ± 21 vs post-op -20 ± 15, p = 0.025; pre-op pronation 59 ± 12 vs post-op 72 ± 17, p = 0.04; pre-op supination 48 ± 2 vs post-op 65 ± 22, p = 0.027) and functional scores. Mobility and pain control were, for stable elbows, satisfactory in the isolated removal group. When the initial or revision indication was instability, the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand = 10 ± 5) and MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance score = 85 ± 16) scores were satisfactory in the R-RHA group.

Discussion

In the case of a radial head fracture, RHA is a satisfactory first-line solution without pre-existing capitellar injury, its results being much weaker in the case of ORIF failure and fracture sequelae. In case of RHA revision, isolated removal or R-RHA adapted according to the pre-operative radio-clinical exam.

Level of evidence

IV.

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.

Survivorship of anatomic press-fit short-stem radial head replacement with a pyrocarbon bearing

BACKGROUND

Restoring the radial head as a stabiliser of the elbow is considered important in cases where there is an associated bony or ligamentous injury. A variety of radial head prostheses are available. There are no reports of the survivorship of a short-stem press-fit radial head prostheses with pyrocarbon bearing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

With institutional review board approval, a retrospective case-note analysis was performed of a consecutive single-surgeon case series of the Integra LifeScience pyrocarbon radial head prostheses (Carbon Modular Radial Head) from October 2010 to October 2019 in a tertiary referral centre. The series was divided into acute trauma and salvage cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

36 patients were included, 23 (64%) for acute injuries and 13 (36%) for failed initial treatment. Of the acute injuries, 20 (87%) had a Wrightington type-C elbow fracture-dislocation. Reoperation was performed in 4 (11%) patients; 10 (28%) had possible loosening on radiographs. The implant survival rate was 94% at shortest follow-up of 17 months (mean 70 months).

DISCUSSION

Treatment of complex radial head fractures using a pyrocarbon-bearing, anatomic press-fit design provides satisfactory short-term survivorship in this case series. The implant should be used with caution in salvage cases, due to higher rates of loosening seen in this cohort.

Does stress shielding after radial head arthroplasty affect functional outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Various complications related to the prosthesis, such as implant loosening and stress shielding phenomenon, could develop after prosthetic replacement of the radial head. Stress shielding is known to occur around rigidly fixed implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical influence and causative factors of the stress shielding phenomenon after radial head arthroplasty (RHA).

METHODS

Clinical records and radiographs of 56 patients with unreconstructable radial head fractures who received radial head replacement between 2009 and 2019 were reviewed. Exclusion criteria were infection, loosening, and follow-up of less than 24 months. After exclusion, 35 patients were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups: an anatomical press-fit group (Anatomical Radial Head System; Acumed, Hillsboro, OR, USA) and a round bipolar cemented group (RHS; Tornier, Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France). Stress shielding around the prosthesis was assessed in the serial radiological examination. Clinical results were assessed using Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (q-DASH) score, range of motion (flexion-extension arc and pronation-supination arc), and visual analog scale score (VAS). Correlations between stress shielding phenomenon and demographic data and functional results were analyzed.

RESULTS

At an average follow-up of 43.06 (± 14.6) months, 14 (40%) out of 35 fixed stems demonstrated stress shielding. Our results showed that the rate of stress shielding was significantly higher in cases with a bilateral ligament injury and in the anatomical press-fit group (p = 0.028 and p = 0.0091, respectively). However, stress shielding around prostheses did not affect the clinical results (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The stress shielding phenomenon around radial head prosthesis may vary according to prosthetic design and severity of ligament injuries. Stress shielding does not affect the mid-term outcomes in the treatment of acute fractures of the radial head.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

Radial head arthroplasty: a descriptive study of 970 patients in an integrated health care system

BACKGROUND

Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is commonly performed for isolated comminuted radial head fractures and in conjunction with traumatic elbow instability. However, there is a paucity of literature directly describing the characteristics and outcomes of patients who undergo RHA in a community-based setting. We describe a cohort of 970 RHA performed in the California regions of a US integrated health care system over a 9-year period. Patient demographics, implant selection, 90-day acute postoperative events, and cumulative reoperation/revision rates are included.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary RHA were identified (2009-2017). Patient characteristics and demographics, including age, body mass index, gender, diabetes status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, primary diagnosis, and concomitant procedures were described. Crude cumulative revision and reoperation probabilities were calculated as 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier estimator, with follow-up time calculated as the time from the index RHA to revision/reoperation date for those with the outcome of interest and time from index RHA to censoring date (eg, date of death, health care termination, study end date [March 31, 2018]) for those without the outcome. Ninety-day postoperative incidence of emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, and mortality was calculated as the number of patients with the event of interest over the number of patients at risk.

RESULTS

A total of 970 patients underwent primary unilateral RHA by 205 surgeons during the study period. Annual procedure volume increased from 53 procedures in 2009 to 157 procedures in 2017. More patients were female, without diabetes, and had an ASA classification of 1 or 2. Fracture was the predominant indication for RHA (98.4%) and more than half (54.3%) had concomitant procedures performed. Most implants were press fit (63.2%) over loose fit, and >90% were monopolar. Three-year cumulative revision and reoperation probabilities following RHA were 6.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.0%-8.5%) and 8.2% (95% CI = 6.5%-10.3%), respectively. Revisions and reoperations tended to occur within the first postoperative year. Of the 970 RHA patients, 83 (8.5%) had a 90-day ED visit, 58 (6.0%) had a 90-day readmission, and 1 (0.1%) died within a 90-day postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

This large cohort of RHA patients provides information about the practice of RHA at large and in the community. Surgeons are performing more RHA over time and choosing press fit stems more often. Revisions and reoperations tended to occur early. Readmission and ED visits were low but not negligible, with pain being the most common reason for ED visit.

Silicone radial head prostheses: the clinical course and treatment of failure-a case series

INTRODUCTION

Silicone radial head prostheses (SRHP) have a reputation of acceptable initial function but failure in the medium to long term as a result of the disintegration of the silicone material. Damaged SRHP can result in a silicone-induced synovitis and destruction of the joint. Early removal of damaged SRHP may prevent joint destruction. Literature is scarce; there are no studies describing early symptoms associated with clinical failure of SRHP and very few studies on appropriate treatment of destructed SRHP. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical course of failing SRHP and to provide practical guidance for treatment.

METHODS

Fifteen consecutive cases of failed SRHP, operated between 2005 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed, using patient logs, radiographic results, and a questionnaire. Relevant data concerning pre- and postoperative complaints, function, and surgical details were gathered. Using the questionnaire, retrospective and current patient reported outcomes including Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores, pain, instability, and range of motion were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average time between implantation of the SRHP until outpatient presentation was 16 years. The average recalled SANE score before start of complaints was 8.6 out of 10 points. In 4 patients, the onset of complaints was preceded by a trauma. Five patients had symptoms for more than a year, and 9 patients for several months. Progressive pain in the elbow and/or wrist and mechanical symptoms were early and prominent symptoms of failure. Clinical signs of synovitis were frequently present. The majority of patients had a slow but progressive onset of complaints over several months before presentation. Twelve of 15 cases of failed SRHP were surgically treated. Fragmentation of the implant, osteoarthritis, and synovitis were found in all surgically treated cases. Both surgical removal and synovectomy alone, and revision to a new radial head prosthesis resulted in good medium-term outcomes with a mean SANE score of 7.3 points at 8.4 years of follow-up. Postoperative extension lags and mild instability were frequently mentioned as a reason for reimplantation of a metallic radial head implant and removal of the radial head alone, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both patients and physicians should be aware of early symptoms of a failing SRHP. Adequate recognition, radiographic evaluation, and early intervention may favor outcomes of failing SRHP. Surgical removal is easy to perform. In selected cases, revision of the radial head prosthesis may be considered. Both of these treatment strategies resulted in satisfying outcomes.

A registry study on radial head arthroplasties in the Netherlands: Indications, types and short-term survival

BACKGROUND

This study aims to use the Dutch Arthroplasty Register data to report an overview of the contemporary indications and implant designs, and report the short-term survival of radial head arthroplasty.

METHODS

From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, data on patient demographics, surgery and revision were extracted for radial head arthroplasties performed from January 2014 to December 2019. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight arthroplasties were included with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. The most common indication was a fracture of the radial head (178, 69%). One hundred thirty-nine (68%) of the prostheses were of bipolar design, and the most commonly used implant type was the Radial Head System (Tornier; 134, 51%). Of the 258 included radial head arthroplasties, 16 were revised at a median of six months after surgery. Reason for revision was predominantly aseptic loosening (9). The overall implant survival was 95.8% after one year, 90.5% after three years and 89.5% after five years.

DISCUSSION

For radial head arthroplasties, acute trauma is the most common indication and Radial Head System the most commonly used implant. The implant survival is 89.5% after five years.

Radial head fractures

Radial head fractures are the commonest fractures in the elbow. They are often associated with other injuries: ligamentous, cartilaginous or other fractures. Associated injuries are important determinant of the management of the radial head fracture. These should be carefully looked for, diagnosed and treated. The original Mason classification for this fracture has been modified to include the associated injuries and their treatment. CT scan is a helpful diagnostic tool and should be used if available. Radial head fractures can be treated either conservatively or operatively (by excision, open reduction and internal fixation or prosthetic replacement). Undisplaced or minimally displaced fractures should be treated non-operatively. Internal fixation by headless cannulated screws is the preferred treatment for displaced fractures. It provides satisfactory biomechanical stability, can be done through a smaller incision, has less complications and lesser requirement of later removal of screws. Small number of fractures with comminution of neck would require plate fixation. Unfixable fractures in elderly can be treated by excision while such fractures in younger population or associated with significant soft tissue or bony injuries would require prosthetic replacement.

RADIAL head arthroplasty: does ligaments repair influence outcomes? A minimum two years follow-up radiographic multi-center study

PURPOSE

The current indication for comminuted radial head fractures is radial head arthroplasty (RHA). The main purpose of this study was to investigate any statistical differences in terms of prosthesis revision or removal and radiographic degenerative changes by comparing patients who underwent RHA and ligaments repair to those who underwent only RHA implant at minimum two years follow-up. The secondary aim was to delineate a trend profile of RHA implants.

METHODS

All patients who underwent RHA surgery for traumatic pathology between January 2012 and December 2017 were eligible. Two researchers independently and retrospectively reviewed the patients' charts and collected the following data: type of prosthesis, associated surgical procedures and revision surgery. They also looked for any radiographic sign of prosthesis loosening, overstuffing, capitellar osteopenia, heterotopic ossification and degenerative changes. No clinical evaluation was performed.

RESULTS

In 6 years, 124 RHA were implanted (74 female, 50 male, mean age 56). The main diagnoses were: terrible triad, trans-olecranon fracture and isolated radial head fracture. It was found no significant statistical difference between the 2 groups; nevertheless, the cohort of patients that underwent ligaments repair had a lower revision rate in comparison with the other. Suture of the annular ligament seems to be critical. The overall revision rate was 10.5%.

CONCLUSION

This multi-center study found no evidence that ligaments repair, as an associated surgical procedure, improves RHA longevity, except for annular ligament. Nevertheless, it seems to prevent degenerative changes at midterm follow-up.

Risk Factors for Revision Surgery Following Radial Head Arthroplasty without Cement for Unreconstructible Radial Head Fractures: Minimum 3-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Revision rates following radial head arthroplasty (RHA) for unreconstructible radial head fractures (RHFs) differ vastly in the literature, and little is known about the risk factors that are associated with revision surgery. The purposes of this study were to assess the revision rate following RHA and to determine the associated risk factors.

METHODS

A total of 122 patients (mean age, 50.7 years; range, 18 to 79 years) with 123 RHAs who underwent RHA for unreconstructible RHFs between 1994 and 2014 and were ≥3 years out from surgery were included. Demographic variables, injury and procedure-related characteristics, radiographic findings, complications, and revision procedures were assessed. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors that were associated with revision surgery following RHA.

RESULTS

The median follow-up for the study cohort was 7.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 5.1 to 10.1 years). All of the patients had unreconstructible RHFs: Mason-Johnston type-IV injuries were the most prevalent (80 [65%]). One or more associated osseous or ligamentous injuries were seen in 89 elbows (72.4%). The median time to surgery was 7 days (IQR, 3 to 11 days). Implanted prostheses were categorized as rigidly fixed (65 [52.8%]) or loosely fixed (58 [47.2%]). A total of 28 elbows (22.8%) underwent revision surgery at a median of 1.1 years (IQR, 0.3 to 3.8 years), with the majority of elbows (17 [60.7%]) undergoing revision surgery within the first 2 years. The most common reason for revision surgery was painful implant loosening (14 [29.2% of 48 complications]). Univariate Cox regression suggested that Workers' Compensation claims (hazard ratio [HR], 5.48; p < 0.001) and the use of an external fixator (HR, 4.67; p = 0.007) were significantly associated with revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision rates following RHA for unreconstructible RHFs are high; the most common cause for revision surgery is painful implant loosening. Revision surgeries are predominantly performed within the first 2 years after implantation, and surgeons should be aware that Workers' Compensation claims and the use of an external fixator in management of the elbow injury are associated with revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Acute radial head replacement with bipolar prostheses: midterm results

In irreparable radial head fractures, especially if primary stabilizers of the elbow are damaged, the prosthetic replacement prevents instability and stiffness. Concerns have arisen over the use of bipolar press-fit prostheses due to the frequent finding of osteolysis and the risk of instability if compared to monopolar implants. Our aim was to assess midterm clinical and radiological outcomes of bipolar implants and the influence of osteolysis on proximal pain. Seventeen patients with irreparable fractures of the radial head, treated in acute with the same prosthetic model (rHEAD recon SBI/Stryker) between January 2015 and December 2018, were enrolled. Clinical assessment was performed using MEPS and DASH scores; a radiographic study was done to identify heterotopic ossifications and periprosthetic osteolysis. Outcomes at the last follow-up, according to MEPS, were excellent in 10 cases, good in 5 and fair in 2; none of the patients had severe pain or instability. In 3 cases, it was necessary to remove the implant, mainly because of early loosening. Radiological findings of osteolysis were detected in 9 cases, but no statistical correlation was found with MEPS and proximal pain. The use of bipolar implants is reliable if an accurate repair of ligament tears is performed and provides a good stability. Nevertheless, the risk of early aseptic loosening in uncemented implants is not negligible, and the follow-up of the patient must be strict. Late osteolysis does not seem to have clinical relevance, but further prospective studies are necessary to clarify this topic.

Management of the failed radial head arthroplasty

Primary radial head arthroplasty (RHA) produces good or excellent results in approximately 85% of patients. However, complications are not uncommon and have been described in up to 23% of cases.

The number of RHA is increasing, and consequently the absolute number of complications is expected to rise as well. The decision on whether to revise or remove the prosthesis seems more likely to depend on the preference of the surgeon or the hospital, rather than on objectifying problems with the prosthesis.

The current article presents an algorithm for the work-up and treatment of most complications that can occur following RHA.

Five subgroups of problems were identified: osteoarthritis, stiffness, instability, infection and implant-related issues.

In short, the preferred treatment depends mainly on the chondral condition and stability of the elbow joint.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:398-407. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190055