Radial head replacement with a bipolar system: a minimum 2-year follow-up

Zunkiewicz, Mark; Clemente, Jill; Miller, Mark Carl; Baratz, Mark E.; Wysocki, Robert; Cohen, Mark S.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.012

Cited by 53 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are comparable to those after implantation of other modern types of prostheses [8,18,25]. In 30 patients with implantation of a newly designed bipolar RHP with a mean follow-up of 34 months the MEPS averaged 92.1 points [25]. As in our study clinical function was significantly reduced compared to the uninjured contralateral side.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…As in our study clinical function was significantly reduced compared to the uninjured contralateral side. Results were significantly better in cases of implantation in the acute trauma situation (n=23) than in chronic cases (n=7) [25]. Results also tended to favour primary implantation in our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Later bipolar prostheses were designed to articulate with the capitulum humeri in a more anatomical fashion [7]. Short-and midterm results of bipolar prostheses show predominantly good results [3,4,19,25]. Dislocation of components and subluxation of the prosthetic head in up to 12 % must be considered as possible disadvantages as must the fact that most prostheses with a bipolar design are cemented in the radial shaft [3,4,13,24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment goals for radial head fractures are to restore elbow stability and forearm rotation, to preserve elbow motion and to maintain the length of the radius [25]. Common treatment options of Mason type III fractures are osteosynthesis, radial head resection and prosthetic replacement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Radial head resection leads to predominantly good results in stable elbows without further concomitant lesions [1]. An incorrect indication for resection will lead to persistent valgus, longitudinal forearm instability and other secondary symptoms [1,12,13,25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Monobloc radial head prostheses in complex elbow injuries: results after primary and secondary implantation

Katthagen

Jensen

Lill

et al. 2012

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Dislocations of components, loosening of the stem, overstuffing and removal in up to 24 % of common radial head prostheses (RHP) after implantation in complex elbow injuries signal the need for improvement. The latest biomechanical evidence shows advantages for monopolar designs. Clinical results after primary and secondary implantation of the newly designed press-fit monobloc monopolar RHP in cases of complex elbow injury are evaluated. Methods Twenty-nine patients [median age 60 years (29-86)] were followed up retrospectively for a median of 25 months (7-54) post-operatively. Subjective parameters, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Broberg and Morrey score (BMS), latest radiographs and complications were evaluated. Results MEPS and BMS averaged 87.2±12.9 and 81.1±11.9 points, respectively. No case of implant loosening was observed; the RHP had to be removed in one case (3 %). The overall complication and revision rate was higher after secondary (53 %) than after primary (19 %) implantation. Conclusions Satisfactory clinical results and low short-term removal rates emphasise the practicality of monobloc monopolar RHP. Differentiated treatment of complex elbow fracturedislocations is compulsory to avoid the need for secondary RHP implantation which carries a higher complication rate.

show abstract