header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

RADIAL HEAD PROSTHETIC REPLACEMENT – AN ICEBERG OF COMPLEXITY

British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) 2005



Abstract

To study the surgical outcome of multi-fragmentary, un-reconstructable radial head fractures managed acutely by a radial head prosthetic replacement, we retrospectively reviewed nineteen radial head fractures that were treated acutely with a radial head replacement, over a four-year period in three district general hospitals. Nineteen patients were clinically and radiologically assessed for this study. Functional assessment was performed with the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS).

No patient achieved full functional range of motion. The average range of flexion was 110° (range 80° to 120°), average extension deficit of 35° (range 30° to 45°), average pronation was 35° (range 0° to 65°), and average supination was 50° (range 30° to 85°). Complications included implant removal due to loosening (n=1), elbow stiffness (n=2), and instability (n=1), the latter case requiring a revision of the radial head prosthesis. Some degree of persistent discomfort was noticed in all cases. Five patients were tolerant of the final functional outcome. The average Mayo elbow score was 68/100 (range 55 to 80). One patient had an intra-operative fracture of the radial metaphysis during insertion of the implant.

Conclusions

Radial head replacement in general orthopaedic, low volume practice failed to achieve satisfactory results. Contrary to popular belief, it is a technically demanding operation, for which surveillance should be continued for a minimum of one year. Strict indications for prosthetic replacement should be followed and implant selection has yet to be proven to make a significant positive contribution.

Our review highlights the need for a stricter adherence to indications; surgery should not be under-estimated and devolved to trainees, and our understanding of the radial axis of the elbow and forearm remains relatively rudimentary