Comparison of bipolar and monopolar radial head prostheses in elbow fracture-dislocation.

INTRODUCTION

The role of bipolar radial head prostheses (RHP) in elbow fracture-dislocation is controversial, with some reports of poorer stabilization than with monopolar designs. The aim of the present study was to compare mono- versus bi-polar RHPs in elbow fracture-dislocation. The study hypothesis was that mono- and bi-polar RHPs do not differ in clinical and radiological results, complications or revision rates.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study included 58 patients, with a mean age of 55 years (range, 21-84 years). All received RHP for elbow dislocation with association: terrible triad, Monteggia fracture-dislocation, transolecranal dislocation or divergent dislocation. Two groups were compared: Mono-RHP, with monopolar prosthesis (n=40), and Bi-RHP, with bipolar prosthesis (n=18). All patients underwent clinical and radiological examination at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 42.7 months (range, 12-131 months). There were no significant (p>0.05) inter-group differences in range of motion or Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Mono- versus bi-polar design did not correlate with onset of complications (p=0.89), surgical revision (p=0.71), persistent or recurrent instability (p=0.59), or ulnohumeral (p=0.62) or capitulum (p=0.159) osteoarthritis at last follow-up.

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

No differences were found between mono- and bi-polar RHPs in the treatment of elbow fracture-dislocation. Clinical and radiographic results were similar, as were complications and revision rates. The literature is inconclusive, reporting contradictory conclusions. We see no contraindications to bipolar RHPs in elbow dislocation with association, notably terrible triad injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective case-control study.