Advantages of Modular Radial Head Prosthesis Use in Highly Comminuted Fractures

Abstract:

This article aims to evaluate the results and outcomes of patients with highly comminuted radial head fractures, Mason III / IV type, treated surgically by arthroplasty with a cemented modular radial head prosthesis. A fracture of the radial head with a high degree of comminution left untreated can lead to complex functional impairment in which both elbow flexion and extension and also the pronation / supination of the forearm are limited, all of which will affect their daily activities. Management of radial head fractures should be based on both injury-specific factors and patient factors. Injury-specific factors include fracture size, displacement, rotation block, and associated injuries. Patient factors include age, associated injuries, bone quality, and activity level. Six patients underwent surgery for highly comminuted radial head fractures. All participants were followed up to 36 months postsurgery. A final review was carried out at 12-36 months after surgery when clinical, functional and imagistic assessment was performed. Functional results were very good; stability and ROM data obtained were within normal limits. Surgical treatment using modular radial head prosthesis offered excellent results, the elbow mobility being in the normal range and patients requiring a short period of recovery to achieve these parameters.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 745)
• Pages: 145-156
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.745.145
• Online since: July 2017
• Authors: Marius Stănescu, Adrian Bogdan Popescu, Zubaci Radu*
• Keywords: Arthroplasty, Modular Radial Head Prosthesis, Radial Head Fracture

References

[1] Morrey BF, The elbow and its disorders, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; (1993).

[2] King GJ, Green DP, Hotchkiss RN, Pederson WC, Wolfe SW. Green's Operative Hand Surgery. London: Churchill Livingston; (2005).

[3] Ambacher T, Maurer F, Weise K, Treatment results after primary and secondary resection of the radial head, Unfallchirurg. 103: 6 (2000), 437–443.

[4] Beingessner DM, Dunning CE, Gordon KD, Johnson JA, King GJ, The effect of radial head fracture size on elbow kinematics and stability, J Orthop Res. 23: 1 (2005), 210–217.

DOI: 10.1016/j.orthres.2004.06.001

[5] Moro JK, Werier J, MacDermid JC, et al., Arthroplasty with a metal radial head for unreconstructible fractures of the radial head, J Bone Joint Surg Am. 83 (2001), 1201–1211.

DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200108000-00010

[6] Hotchkiss RN: Displaced fractures of the radial head: Internal fixation or excision. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 5 (1997), 1-10.

[7] Smets S, Govaers K, Jansen N, et al., The floating radial head prosthesis for comminuted radial head fractures: a multicentric study, Acta Orthop Belg. 66 (2000), 353–358.

[8] Morrey BF, Tanaka S, An KN, Valgus stability of the elbow: a definition of primary and secondary constraints, Clin Orthop Relat Res. 265 (1991), 187–195.

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199104000-00021

[9] Amis AA, Miller JH, Dowson D, Wright V, Biomechanical aspects of the elbow: joint forces related to prosthesis design, Eng Med 10 (1981), 65–68.

DOI: 10.1243/emed_jour_1981_010_021_02

[10] King GJ, Adams RA, Morrey BF, Total elbow arthroplasty: revision with use of a non-custom semiconstrained prosthesis, J Bone Joint Surg Am 79 (1997), 394-400.

DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199703000-00012

[11] Morrey BF, Adams RA, Semiconstrained arthroplasty for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74 (1992), 479-490.

DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199274040-00003

[12] Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, et al., The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery, J Bone Joint Surg Br 90 (2008), 466-473.

DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.90b4.20290

[13] Sathyamoorthy P, Kemp GJ, Rawal A, Rayner V, Frostick SP, Development and validation of an elbow score, Rheumatology 43 (2004), 1434-1440.

DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh367

[14] The B, Reininga IH, El Moumni M, Eygendaal D, Elbow-specific clinical rating systems: extent of established validity, reliability, and responsiveness, J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22 (2013), 1380-1394.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.04.013

[15] Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD, The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection, Med Care 30 (1992), 473-483.

DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

[16] Schneeberger A., Kosters M., Steens W., Comparison of the subjective elbow value and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23 (2014), 308-312.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.018

[17] Antoniac I., Biologically responsive biomaterials for tissue engineering, Springer, New York (2013).

[18] Niculescu M, Laptoiu D, Miculescu F, Antoniac I, Metal allergy and other adverse reactions in patients with total hip replacement, Advanced Materials Research, 1114 (2015), 283-287.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.1114.283