Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023
After failed radial head arthroplasty, what are the options? Risk factors and results of revisions in a multicenter study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Barret Hugo, Mansat Pierre, Langlais Tristan, Favard Luc, Chammas Michel, Coulet Bertrand
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Few multicenter studies have analyzed the outcome of revision surgery of radial head arthroplasties (RHA) in the medium term follow up. The objective is twofold: to determine the factors associated with revision of RHAs and to analyze the results of revision with 2 surgical techniques: isolated removal of the RHA or revision with a new RHA (R-RHA).
HYPOTHESIS: There are associated factors of RHA revision and RHA revision results in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes.
METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were included in this multicenter retrospective study, with all surgical indications for initial RHA being traumatic/post-traumatic. The mean age was 47 ± 13 years with a mean follow-up of 70 ± 48 months. This series included two groups: the isolated RHA removal group (n = 17) and the revision RHA with new radial head prosthesis (R-RHA) group (n = 11). Evaluation was clinical and radiological with univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Two factors associated with RHA revision were identified: a pre-existing capitellar lesion (p = 0.047) and a RHA placed for a secondary indication (<0.001). Revision for all 28 patients resulted in improved pain (pre-op Visual Analog Scale 4.7 ± 3 vs. post-op 1.57 ± 2.2, p < 0.001), mobilities (pre-op flexion 118 ± 20 vs. post-op 130 ± 13, p = 0.03; pre-op extension -30 ± 21 vs post-op -20 ± 15, p = 0.025; pre-op pronation 59 ± 12 vs post-op 72 ± 17, p = 0.04; pre-op supination 48 ± 2 vs post-op 65 ± 22, p = 0.027) and functional scores. Mobility and pain control were, for stable elbows, satisfactory in the isolated removal group. When the initial or revision indication was instability, the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand = 10 ± 5) and MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance score = 85 ± 16) scores were satisfactory in the R-RHA group.
DISCUSSION: In the case of a radial head fracture, RHA is a satisfactory first-line solution without pre-existing capitellar injury, its results being much weaker in the case of ORIF failure and fracture sequelae. In case of RHA revision, isolated removal or R-RHA adapted according to the pre-operative radio-clinical exam.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
HYPOTHESIS: There are associated factors of RHA revision and RHA revision results in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes.
METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were included in this multicenter retrospective study, with all surgical indications for initial RHA being traumatic/post-traumatic. The mean age was 47 ± 13 years with a mean follow-up of 70 ± 48 months. This series included two groups: the isolated RHA removal group (n = 17) and the revision RHA with new radial head prosthesis (R-RHA) group (n = 11). Evaluation was clinical and radiological with univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Two factors associated with RHA revision were identified: a pre-existing capitellar lesion (p = 0.047) and a RHA placed for a secondary indication (<0.001). Revision for all 28 patients resulted in improved pain (pre-op Visual Analog Scale 4.7 ± 3 vs. post-op 1.57 ± 2.2, p < 0.001), mobilities (pre-op flexion 118 ± 20 vs. post-op 130 ± 13, p = 0.03; pre-op extension -30 ± 21 vs post-op -20 ± 15, p = 0.025; pre-op pronation 59 ± 12 vs post-op 72 ± 17, p = 0.04; pre-op supination 48 ± 2 vs post-op 65 ± 22, p = 0.027) and functional scores. Mobility and pain control were, for stable elbows, satisfactory in the isolated removal group. When the initial or revision indication was instability, the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand = 10 ± 5) and MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance score = 85 ± 16) scores were satisfactory in the R-RHA group.
DISCUSSION: In the case of a radial head fracture, RHA is a satisfactory first-line solution without pre-existing capitellar injury, its results being much weaker in the case of ORIF failure and fracture sequelae. In case of RHA revision, isolated removal or R-RHA adapted according to the pre-operative radio-clinical exam.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.