Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2016
Clinical and radiographic outcome of revision surgery of radial head prostheses: midterm results in 16 patients.
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.
Viveen Jetske, Kodde Izaäk F, Koenraadt Koen L M, Beumer Annechien, The Bertram, Eygendaal Denise
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Little is known about revision surgery of radial head arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to report on the clinical and radiographic outcome of revision arthroplasty of the elbow with a bipolar metallic radial head prosthesis.
METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, we used either a press-fit or cemented RHS bipolar radial head prosthesis for revision surgery of radial head arthroplasty in 16 patients. Patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. Differences in outcome parameters before and after revision surgery were compared.
RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 75 months (range, 36-116 months), none of the revised radial head prostheses needed a second revision. None of the stems showed radiographic signs of loosening. In 1 patient the head was dissociated from the prosthesis. The average flexion-extension arc was 127° (range, 105°-140°), and the average pronation-supination arc was 138° (range, 90°-160°). Stability scores improved after revision surgery, resulting in 13 stable elbows (P = .01). In 8 patients the Oxford Elbow Score was between 37 and 48 points. The percentage of patients with either good or excellent results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 63%. The mean score on the EQ-5D (EuroQol Five Dimensions) was 80 (range, 63-100), and the visual analog scale scores both for pain at rest and for pain with activity improved to 3 (range, 0-9) and 4 (range, 0-9), respectively (P < .001). All but 1 patient was satisfied with the results of the revision procedure.
CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision surgery of a radial head prostheses are favorable.
METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, we used either a press-fit or cemented RHS bipolar radial head prosthesis for revision surgery of radial head arthroplasty in 16 patients. Patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. Differences in outcome parameters before and after revision surgery were compared.
RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 75 months (range, 36-116 months), none of the revised radial head prostheses needed a second revision. None of the stems showed radiographic signs of loosening. In 1 patient the head was dissociated from the prosthesis. The average flexion-extension arc was 127° (range, 105°-140°), and the average pronation-supination arc was 138° (range, 90°-160°). Stability scores improved after revision surgery, resulting in 13 stable elbows (P = .01). In 8 patients the Oxford Elbow Score was between 37 and 48 points. The percentage of patients with either good or excellent results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 63%. The mean score on the EQ-5D (EuroQol Five Dimensions) was 80 (range, 63-100), and the visual analog scale scores both for pain at rest and for pain with activity improved to 3 (range, 0-9) and 4 (range, 0-9), respectively (P < .001). All but 1 patient was satisfied with the results of the revision procedure.
CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision surgery of a radial head prostheses are favorable.