Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2017
Retrospective cohort study on radial head replacements comparing results between smooth and porous stem designs.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Laflamme Mélissa, Grenier-Gauthier Pierre-Philippe, Leclerc Alexandre, Antoniades Stéphanie, Bédard Anne-Marie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: When necessary, radial head integrity after a fracture can be re-created by the use of a radial head arthroplasty if the radial head is judged irreparable. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of metal modular radial head replacements with a smooth vs. a porous stem.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of radial head replacements performed in the first 4 weeks after a trauma in an adult patient at our institution between 2000 and 2014 was completed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: a porous stem group (ExploR; Biomet Orthopedics, Warsaw, IN, USA) and a smooth stem group (EVOLVE; Wright Medical Group, Memphis, TN, USA). Primary outcomes were the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Mayo Elbow Performance Index scores. Secondary outcomes were the visual analog scale score for pain, range of motion, grip strength, and radiographic evaluations.
RESULTS: Of the 80 eligible patients, 57 agreed to participate (porous stem group, 36; smooth stem group, 21). Demographic data were similar between the 2 groups. Average follow-up was 6.3 years. Average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Mayo Elbow Performance Index scores were similar between the 2 groups. Porous implants were more prone to osteolysis (64.3% vs. 23.5%; P = .01) and were associated with a greater loss of elbow flexion (6° vs. 1°; P = .02). The porous stem group showed a tendency toward more overstuffing (24.0% vs. 5.9%; P = .21).
CONCLUSION: Our results reveal that outcomes between smooth and porous stem metal modular radial head implants are equivalent. However, the smooth stem implant may represent the preferred option as it is associated with a lower rate of complications.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of radial head replacements performed in the first 4 weeks after a trauma in an adult patient at our institution between 2000 and 2014 was completed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: a porous stem group (ExploR; Biomet Orthopedics, Warsaw, IN, USA) and a smooth stem group (EVOLVE; Wright Medical Group, Memphis, TN, USA). Primary outcomes were the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Mayo Elbow Performance Index scores. Secondary outcomes were the visual analog scale score for pain, range of motion, grip strength, and radiographic evaluations.
RESULTS: Of the 80 eligible patients, 57 agreed to participate (porous stem group, 36; smooth stem group, 21). Demographic data were similar between the 2 groups. Average follow-up was 6.3 years. Average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Mayo Elbow Performance Index scores were similar between the 2 groups. Porous implants were more prone to osteolysis (64.3% vs. 23.5%; P = .01) and were associated with a greater loss of elbow flexion (6° vs. 1°; P = .02). The porous stem group showed a tendency toward more overstuffing (24.0% vs. 5.9%; P = .21).
CONCLUSION: Our results reveal that outcomes between smooth and porous stem metal modular radial head implants are equivalent. However, the smooth stem implant may represent the preferred option as it is associated with a lower rate of complications.