High Risk of Further Surgery After Radial Head Replacement for Unstable Fractures: Longer-term Outcomes at a Minimum Follow-up of 8 Years.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for treating acute, unreconstructable radial head fractures in unstable elbows with radial head replacement predominantly consists of short- to mid-term follow-up studies with a heterogenous mix of implants and operative techniques. Data on longer-term patient-reported outcomes after radial head replacement is lacking. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients undergo revision or implant removal after radial head replacement? (2) At a minimum of 8 years follow-up, what are the patient-reported outcomes (QuickDASH, Oxford Elbow Score, and EuroQol-5D)? (3) What factors are associated with a superior long-term patient-reported outcome, according to the QuickDASH? METHODS: Between September 1994 and September 2010, we surgically treated 157 patients for acute radial head fractures. We excluded patients where the radial head was excised (n = 21), internally fixed (n = 15), or replaced as a secondary procedure after failed internal fixation (n = 2). A total of 119 patients who underwent radial head replacement surgery for an acute unreconstructable fracture were included, with a mean age of 50 years (range 15 to 93 ± 19 years), and 53% of patients (63) were women. All but two implants were uncemented, loose-fitting, monopolar prostheses, of which 86% (102) were metallic and 14% (17) were silastic. Implants were only cemented if they appeared unstable within the proximal radius. Silastic implants were used in the earlier series and replaced by metallic implants starting in 2000. We reviewed electronic records to document postoperative complications and prosthesis revision and removal. A member of the local research team (THC, CDC) who was not previously involved in patient care contacted patients to confirm complications, reoperations and to obtain long-term patient-reported outcomes scores. Nineteen patients had died at the point of outcome score collection. Of the remaining 100 patients, 80 were contacted (67% of total cohort), at a median of 11 years (range 8 to 24 years) after injury. The primary outcome measure was the QuickDASH score. RESULTS: Of 119 patients, 25% (30) underwent reoperation, with three patients undergoing revision and 27 patients undergoing prosthesis removal at a median of 7 months (range 0 to 125 months). Twenty-one of 30 procedures (70%) occurred within 1 year after implantation. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis demonstrated a cumulative implant survival rate of 71%. In the 80 patients contacted, the mean QuickDASH score was 13 ± 14, the mean Oxford Elbow Score was 43 ± 6, and the median EuroQol-5D score was 0.8 (-0.3 to 1.0). After controlling for covariates, we found that prothesis revision or removal (p = 0.466) and prosthesis type (p = 0.553) were not associated with patient-reported outcome, according to the QuickDASH. CONCLUSIONS: The management of acute unreconstructable fractures of the radial head in unstable elbow injuries with radial head replacement has a high risk of reoperation. Patients must be counselled regarding this risk of secondary intervention, of which the peak risk appears to be within 1 year after implantation. Despite this, patients report low disability according to the QuickDASH at a minimum follow-up of 8 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Radial head replacement for acute complex fractures: what are the rate and risks factors for revision or removal?

BACKGROUND: When treating complex radial head fractures, important goals include prevention of elbow or forearm instability, with restoration of radiocapitellar contact essential. When open reduction and internal fixation cannot achieve this, radial head replacement is routinely employed, but the frequency of and risk factors for prosthesis revision or removal are not well defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined (1) the frequency of prosthesis revision or removal after radial head replacement for acute complex unstable radial head fractures, (2) risk factors for revision or removal, and (3) functional outcomes after radial head replacement. METHODS: We identified from our prospective trauma database all patients over a 16-year period managed acutely for unstable complex radial head fractures with primary radial head replacement. Of the 119 patients identified, 105 (88%) met our inclusion criteria; mean age was 50 years (range, 16-93 years) and 57 (54%) were female. All implants were uncemented monopolar prostheses, of which 86% were metallic and 14% silastic. We recorded further procedures for prosthesis revision or removal for any cause, with a minimum followup of 1 year (n = 105). Cox regression analysis was used to determine independent factors associated with revision or removal when controlling for baseline patient (age, sex, comorbidities) and fracture (location, classification, associated injury) characteristics. Short-term functional outcomes (Broberg and Morrey score, ROM) were determined from retrospective review of clinic followup (n = 74), with a minimum followup of 3 months. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (28%) underwent prosthesis revision (n = 3) or removal (n = 26) at a mean of 6.7 years (range, 1.8-18 years) after injury. Independent risk factors for removal or revision were silastic implant type and lower age. At a mean of 1.1 years (range, 0.3-5.5 years) after surgery, mean Broberg and Morrey score was 80 out of 100 (range, 40-99). Mean elbow flexion was 133° (range, 90°-159°; SD, 13°), extension 21° (range, 0°-80°; SD, 17°), flexion arc 112° (range, 10°-140°; SD, 25°), pronation 84° (range, 0°-90°; SD, 18°), supination 73° (range, 0°-90°; SD, 28°), and forearm rotation arc 156° (range, 0°-180°; SD, 38°). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a high removal or revision rate after radial head replacement for acute unstable complex fractures, with lower age and silastic implants independent risk factors. Younger patients should be counseled regarding the increased risk of requiring further surgery after radial head replacement. Future work should focus on long-term patient-reported outcomes after these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical frailty is independently associated with joint-specific function and health-related quality of life in patients awaiting a total hip or knee arthroplasty.

The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA). Patients waiting for a THA (n = 100) or KA (n = 100) for more than six months were prospectively recruited from the study centre. Overall,162 patients responded to the questionnaire (81 THA; 81 KA). Patient demographics, Oxford score, EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) score, EuroQol visual analogue score (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), and time spent on the waiting list were collected. There was a significant correlation between CFS and the Oxford score (THA r = -0.838; p < 0.001, KA r = -0.867; p < 0.001), EQ-5D index (THA r = -0.663, p =< 0.001; KA r = -0.681; p =< 0.001), and EQ-VAS (THA r = -0.414; p < 0.001, KA r = -0.386; p < 0.001). Confounding variables (demographics and waiting time) where adjusted for using multiple regression analysis. For each 8.5 (THA, 95% CI 7.1 to 10.0; p < 0.001) and 9.9 (KA, 95% CI 8.4 to 11.4; p < 0.001) point change in the Oxford score, there was an associated change in level of the CFS. For each 0.16 (THA, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.22; p < 0.001) and 0.20 (KA, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; p < 0.001) utility change in EQ-5D, there was an associated change in level of the CFS. EQ-VAS (THA, B = -11.5; p < 0.001, KA B = -7.9; p = 0.005) was also associated with CFS. JSF and HRQoL in patients awaiting THA or KA for more than six months, were independently associated with level of clinical frailty. With further prospective studies, clinical frailty may prove to be a useful metric to assist in the prioritization of arthroplasty waiting lists.

Significant deterioration in quality of life and increased frailty in patients waiting more than six months for total hip or knee arthroplasty : a cross-sectional multicentre study.

AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients waiting six months or more for a total hip (THA) or knee (KA) arthroplasty had a deterioration in their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary aims were to assess changes in frailty and the number of patients living in a state considered to be worse than death (WTD), and factors associated with changes in HRQoL and frailty. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 326 patients, 150 males (46.0%) and 176 females (54.0%), with a mean age of 68.6 years (SD 9.8) who were randomly selected from waiting lists at four centres and had been waiting for six months or more (median 13 months, interquartile range 10 to 21) for a primary THA (n = 161) or KA (n = 165). The EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and 36-Item Short Form Survey subjective change in HRQoL were assessed at the time and recalled for six months earlier. A state that was WTD was defined as an EQ-5D of less than zero. RESULTS: There were significant deteriorations in the EQ-5D (mean 0.175, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.145 to 0.204; p < 0.001), EQ-VAS (mean 8.6, 95% CI 7.0 to 10.4; < 0.001), and CFS (from 3 "managing well" to 4 "vulnerable"; p < 0.001), and a significant increase in the number of those in a state that was WTD (n = 48; p < 0.001) during the previous six months for the whole cohort. A total of 110 patients (33.7%) stated that their health was much worse and 107 (32.8%) felt it was somewhat worse compared with six months previously. A significantly greater EQ-5D (-0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.28; p = 0.038) and a state that was not WTD (-0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; p = 0.031) were associated with a deterioration in the EQ-5D. THA (0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; p = 0.002) or a lower (better) CFS (0.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20; p < 0.001) were independently significantly associated with a deterioration in the CFS. CONCLUSION: Patients waiting more than six months for THA or KA had a significant deterioration in their HRQoL and increased frailty, with two-thirds of patients feeling that their health had worsened.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1215-1224.

Operative repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture does not give superior patient-reported outcomes to nonoperative management.

AIMS: The aim was to compare long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after operative and nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture in the context of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: PROMs including the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D), satisfaction, net promoter score and data regarding re-rupture, and venous thromboembolic rates were collected for patients randomized to receive either operative or nonoperative treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture in a previous study. Of the 80 patients originally randomized, 64 (33 treated surgically, 31 nonoperatively) patients were followed up at a mean of 15.7 years (13.4 to 17.7). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between operatively and nonoperatively treated patients, in SMFA Dysfunction Index (median 1.56 (interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 5.51) vs 1.47 (IQR 0 to 5.15); p = 0.289), SMFA Bother Index (2.08 (IQR 0 to 12.50) vs 0.00 (IQR 0 to 6.25); p = 0.074), ATRS (94 (IQR 86 to 100) vs 95 (IQR 81 to 100); p = 0.313), EQ-5D-5L (1 (IQR 0.75 to 1) vs 1 (IQR 0.84 to 1); p = 0.137) or EQ-5D health today visual analogue score (85 (IQR 72.5 to 95) vs 85 (IQR 8 to 95); p = 0.367). There was no statistically significant difference between operative and nonoperative groups in terms of satisfaction (84% vs 100%; p = 0.119) or willingness to recommend treatment to friends or family (79% vs 87%; p = 0.255). Four nonoperative patients and two in the operative group sustained a re-rupture (p = 0.306). CONCLUSION: Both patient groups reported good results at long-term follow-up. The findings give no evidence of superior long-term patient reported outcomes (as measured by the SMFA) for surgical treatment over nonoperative treatment. There was no demonstrable difference in other patient reported outcome measures, satisfaction, or re-rupture rates at long-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):933-940.

Fractures of the proximal- and middle-thirds of the humeral shaft should be considered as fragility fractures.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the current incidence and epidemiology of humeral diaphyseal fractures. The secondary aim was to explore variation in patient and injury characteristics by fracture location within the humeral diaphysis. METHODS: Over ten years (2008 to 2017), all adult patients (aged ≥ 16 years) sustaining an acute fracture of the humeral diaphysis managed at the study centre were retrospectively identified from a trauma database. Patient age, sex, medical/social background, injury mechanism, fracture classification, and associated injuries were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 900 fractures (typical 88.9%, n = 800/900; pathological 8.3%, n = 75/900; periprosthetic 2.8%, n = 25/900) were identified in 898 patients (mean age 57 years (16 to 97), 55.5% (n = 498/898) female). Overall fracture incidence was 12.6/100,000/year. For patients with a typical fracture (n = 798, mean age 56 years (16 to 96), 55.1% (n = 440/798) female), there was a bimodal distribution in men and unimodal distribution in older women (Type G). A fall from standing was the most common injury mechanism (72.6%, n = 581/800). The majority of fractures involved the middle-third of the diaphysis (47.6%, n = 381/800) followed by the proximal- (30.5%, n = 244/800) and distal-thirds (n = 175/800, 21.9%). In all, 18 injuries (2.3%) were open and a radial nerve palsy occurred in 6.7% (n = 53/795). Fractures involving the proximal- and middle-thirds were more likely to occur in older (p < 0.001), female patients (p < 0.001) with comorbidities (p < 0.001) after a fall from standing (p < 0.001). Proximal-third fractures were also more likely to occur in patients with alcohol excess (p = 0.003) and to be classified as AO-Orthopaedic Trauma Association type B or C injuries (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study updates the incidence and epidemiology of humeral diaphyseal fractures. Important differences in patient and injury characteristics were observed based upon fracture location. Injuries involving the proximal- and middle-thirds of the humeral diaphysis should be considered as fragility fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1475-1483.

Acute Median Neuropathy and Carpal Tunnel Release in Perilunate Injuries Can We Predict Who Gets a Median Neuropathy?

UNLABELLED: This study addressed the following null hypotheses: 1) There are no demographic differences between patients with perilunate dislocation (PLD) or fracture-dislocation (PLFD); 2) There are no factors associated with the development of median nerve symptoms in the setting of a PLD or PLFD; and 3) There are no factors associated with carpal tunnel release. Using a retrospective search of a prospective trauma database, we identified all patients who had sustained a radiologically confirmed PLD or PLFD over a 10-year period at two trauma centers. From the medical records we identified median nerve symptoms and carpal tunnel release in addition to demographic and injury characteristics. Among the 71 patients treated for PLD or PLFD, acute median neuropathy was diagnosed in 33 patients (47 %). The only significant difference between PLD and PLFD was a younger age with PLFD. No demographic or injury factors were associated with symptoms of median neuropathy. Carpal tunnel release surgery during the initial operative management was related to the presence of median nerve symptoms and the trauma center. We report a high incidence of acute median neuropathy accompanying perilunate injuries. As there are no demographic or injury factors associated with symptoms of median neuropathy; all patients with PLD/PLFD merit equally high vigilance for acute median neuropathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Sarcoma excision and pattern of complicating sensory neuropathy.

A potential complication of sarcoma excision surgery is a sensory neurological dysfunction around the surgical scar. This study utilised both objective and subjective sensation assessment modalities, to evaluate 22 patients after sarcoma surgery, for a sensory deficit. 93% had an objective sensory deficit. Light touch is less likely to be damaged than pinprick sensation, and two-point discrimination is significantly reduced around the scar. Results also show that an increased scar size leads to an increased light touch and pinprick deficit and that two-point discriminatory ability around the scar improves as time after surgery elapses. 91% had a subjective deficit, most likely tingling or pain, and numbness was most probable with lower limb sarcomas. Results also demonstrated that there were no significant relationships between any specific subjective and objective deficits. In conclusion, sensory disturbance after sarcoma surgery is common and debilitating. Efforts to minimize scar length are paramount in the prevention of sensory deficit. Sensation may also recover to an extent; thus, sensory reeducation techniques must become an integral aspect of management plans. Finally to obtain a comprehensive assessment of sensory function, both objective and subjective assessment techniques must be utilised.

Long-term outcomes of isolated stable radial head fractures.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to support primary nonoperative management of isolated stable fractures of the radial head, although minimal data exist regarding long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report subjective long-term outcomes of isolated stable fractures of the radial head and neck following primary nonoperative management. METHODS: From a prospective database of proximal radial fractures, we identified all skeletally mature patients who sustained an isolated stable Mason type-1 or type-2 fracture of the radial head or neck during an eighteen-month period. Inclusion criteria were a confirmed isolated stable fracture of the proximal aspect of the radius, primarily managed nonoperatively. The primary long-term outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 100 patients with a mean age of forty-six years (range, seventeen to seventy-nine years). A fall from a standing height accounted for 69% of all injuries. Thirty-five percent of the patients had one or more comorbidities. There were fifty-seven Mason type-1 fractures and forty-three Mason type-2 fractures. At a mean of ten years post injury (range, 8.8 to 10.2 years), the mean DASH score was 5.8 (range, 0 to 67.2) and the mean Oxford Elbow Score (OES) was 46 (range, 14 to 48). Fourteen (14%) of the patients reported stiffness and twenty-four (24%) reported some degree of pain. A worse DASH score was associated with older age (p = 0.002), one or more comorbidities (p = 0.008), increasing socioeconomic deprivation by Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile (p = 0.026), increasing amount of fracture displacement (p = 0.041), and involvement in compensation proceedings (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term patient-reported outcomes were excellent following the nonoperative management of isolated stable fractures of the radial head or neck. We suggest that routine primary nonoperative management of these fractures provides a satisfactory outcome for the majority of patients, with few patients in our study requiring further intervention for persisting complaints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.