Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024
Uncementing the status quo: systematic review of a loose-fit, polished stem radial head prosthesis shows stable clinical results in complex elbow injuries with a concomitant radial head fracture.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lammers Sarah E, Schnellman Gabrielle L, Beimel Claudia, de Gast Arthur, Chambers Brooke E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Selecting the optimal radial head prosthesis to treat radial head fractures, especially in the context of complex elbow injuries like terrible triad, Monteggia, and Essex Lopresti, can be challenging, as there is currently no consensus in the field that favors a particular design. This study investigated the safety and performance of a Polished Stem Radial Head Prosthesis (PS RHP) compared to other modern RHP designs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to capture data on a Polished Stem Radial Head Prosthesis (PS RHP) and other Radial Head Prostheses (RHPs). Functional scores, range of motion, complications, and revisions were extracted from published literature and analyzed in parallel with the percentage of complex injuries. Comparison of functional outcomes between groups were based on minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs).
RESULTS: There were 16 articles reporting on 711 cases of the PS RHP and 23 articles reporting on 605 cases of other RHPs included in the systematic literature review. Functional scores and range of motion were similar amongst the groups. The PS RHP design achieved a comparable revision rate as other RHPs despite a higher number of terrible triad injuries. Notably, the PS RHP group showed a significantly lower rate of instability (1.0%) than other RHPs (3.4%) (p < 0.05). Other complication rates were similar amongst the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The PS RHP group had higher rates of terrible triads at baseline compared to the other RHPs group. Regardless of greater injury complexity, the clinical outcomes of the PS RHP group were favorable and resulted in a significantly lower rate of postoperative instability as compared to other RHPs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to capture data on a Polished Stem Radial Head Prosthesis (PS RHP) and other Radial Head Prostheses (RHPs). Functional scores, range of motion, complications, and revisions were extracted from published literature and analyzed in parallel with the percentage of complex injuries. Comparison of functional outcomes between groups were based on minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs).
RESULTS: There were 16 articles reporting on 711 cases of the PS RHP and 23 articles reporting on 605 cases of other RHPs included in the systematic literature review. Functional scores and range of motion were similar amongst the groups. The PS RHP design achieved a comparable revision rate as other RHPs despite a higher number of terrible triad injuries. Notably, the PS RHP group showed a significantly lower rate of instability (1.0%) than other RHPs (3.4%) (p < 0.05). Other complication rates were similar amongst the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The PS RHP group had higher rates of terrible triads at baseline compared to the other RHPs group. Regardless of greater injury complexity, the clinical outcomes of the PS RHP group were favorable and resulted in a significantly lower rate of postoperative instability as compared to other RHPs.