Compression screwing of displaced fractures of the head of the radius

Shmueli, G; Hz, Herold

doi:10.1302/0301-620x.63b4.7298678

Cited by 46 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results after internal fixation are good with regard to pain (24,76), mobility (22,24,76), strength (24,76) and degenerative disease (76). From a comparative study of 26 patients with Mason type 2 fractures, with a follow-up of 18 months, Khalfayan et al (45) concluded that displaced radial head fractures treated conservatively had more pain and loss of strength and were less mobile than fractures treated by a stable osteosynthesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stable reconstruction of all the fractures and associated soft-tissue injuries near the elbow joint is a prerequisite to start immediate postoperative physiotherapy and motion exercise in order to avoid stiffening (22,45,47,53,72,76). Poor results are directly related to immobilization periods longer than 3 to 4 weeks (61).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2) to allow immediate mobilization and preven stiffness of the elbow joint (22,45,47,53,76). This can be achieved by the use of small fragment screws (22,24,45,76), Herbert screws (22,45,58), plate and screws (22,24), and resorbable polyglycolid pins (35) . Few authors prefer a resection to a reconstruction (16,71,82).…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Current Concepts Review

Harcke¹,

Kumar²

1991

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of simple radial head fractures type Mason-Hotchkiss 1 and 2 is unequivocal. In the case of a displacement of less than 2 mm (MasonHotchkiss 1), functional conservative treatment is indicated. If the displacement is more than 2 mm (Mason-Hotchkiss 2) internal fixation is indicated, combined with treatment of the soft-tissue injuries. The treatment of comminuted radial head fractures Mason-Hotchkiss type 3 is more controversial, as they are usually associated with ligament injuries. Conservative treatment appears to have unsatisfactory results. Opinions differ on surgical treatment, i.e. 1) excision of the radial head ; 2) reconstruction by means of internal fixation ; 3) excision and reconstruction with a prosthesis. Basic experimental research on human cadaver elbows shows the importance of the conservation of the radial head, especially in case of associated soft tissue injuries. In most cases a stable osteosynthesis is impossible, and in case of associated ligament disruptions, resection and reconstruction by means of a rigid radial head prosthesis should be considered. Experimental research demonstrates promising results for rigid radial head prostheses in human cadaver elbows with a resected radial head and failing medial collateral ligament. Short-term clinical studies seem to confirm this, but long-term results are as yet unknown.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current Concepts Review

Harcke¹,

Kumar²

1991

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mason [1] first classified radial head fractures with a later modification by Johnston [6]. While Mason I fractures (marginal minimally displaced fracture) are primarily treated by conservative methods, Mason II (marginal fractures with displacement), and Mason III (comminuted) fractures are primarily treated by open reduction and internal fixation with screws or plates [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The unreconstructable Mason III and all Mason IV fractures are subjected to either radial head excision [19][20][21][22] or radial head replacement [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relative merits of open reduction and internal fixation of the radial head fractures for maintenance of radio-capitellar contact have been reported, but the results are not universally consistent [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. We hypothesize that the associated injuries are under-diagnosed, under-treated and are under-estimated in terms of their relevance to the patient's final functional outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%