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.

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.

Mason type III fractures of the radial head: ORIF, resection or prosthetic replacement?

PURPOSE: This study focused on a comparison of mid-term clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes of adults treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head prosthesis (RHP) and resection (RHR). METHODS: The retrospective evaluation concerned 47 surgically treated patients after a mean follow-up of 53 months. All patients were grouped according to the surgical procedure performed: 15 in the RHP group, 16 in the ORIF group and 16 in the RHR group. At the follow-up, outcome assessment was based on radiographs, range of motion (ROM) and functional rating scores. RESULTS: Patients treated by RHR had significantly higher mean age and shorter operation time than other two groups. Compared to ROM, flexion, extension and pronation were significantly worse in patients treated by ORIF than those in the RHP group and the RHR group. Supination was significantly better in the RHP group. However, no statistical differences were observed in functional rating scores among the three groups. Regarding complications, instability was the only cause of revision surgery in the RHP group and the RHR group. On the other hand, the ORIF group revision rate was 50% and secondary displacement was the most frequent cause of failure. CONCLUSION: The ORIF group did not show good results with greater elbow stiffness and higher revision rate than the other two techniques. RHR may be suitable for elderly patients with lower functional demands as it reported good clinical results and reduced operation time.