Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is used for the management of unstable or unreconstructable injuries of the radial head. Our aim was to investigate clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients treated with the Acumed anatomic radial head press-fit system for trauma.
Methods
Clinical and radiographic assessment of RHAs undertaken for trauma with minimum 2-year follow-up.
Results
16 consecutive patients, mean age 53 (21–82) and 66 month ± 27 (26–122) clinical follow-up were included. There were marked radiographic changes with 11/16 showing periprosthetic lucent lines and 13/16 showing subcollar osteolysis. Radiographic changes occurred early post-surgery. Stem loosening was associated with larger cantilever quotients (0.47 vs 0.38, p = 0.004). Overall survivability was 81.2%, with 3 RHAs removed. Clinical outcomes for the retained RHAs were acceptable with mean flexion 134°, extension deficit of 10°, pronation of 82°, and supination of 73°. Mean VAS scores were 8.5 ± 14.4, QuickDASH 13.8 ± 18.9, Mayo Elbow Performance Scores were 91.5 ± 12.5 with no poor scores.
Conclusion
Mid-term clinical functional outcomes following the Acumed anatomic RHA are acceptable in most cases. However, in view of the extensive periprosthetic lucencies and surgical removal due to loosening, patients should be cautioned when consented for implantation of the prosthesis, especially if a large collar is anticipated.
JordanRWJonesAD. Radial head fractures. Open Orthop J2017; 11: 1405–1416.
2.
van RietRPMorreyBF. Documentation of associated injuries occurring with radial head fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008; 466: 130–134.
3.
CharalambousCPStanleyJKMillsSP,et al.Comminuted radial head fractures: aspects of current management. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2011; 20: 996–100.
4.
HeijinkAKoddeIFMulderPG,et al.Radial head arthroplasty: a systematic review. JBJS Rev2016; 4: e3.
5.
AgyemanKDDamodarDWatkinsI,et al.Does radial head implant fixation affect functional outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 126–130.
6.
HaASPetscavageJMChewFS. Radial head arthroplasty: a radiologic outcome study. AJR Am J Roentgenol2012; 199: 1078–1082.
7.
BerschbackJCLynchTSKalainovDM,et al.Clinical and radiographic comparisons of two different radial head implant designs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2013; 22: 1108–1120.
FlinkkiläTKaistoTSirniöK,et al.Short- to mid-term results of metallic press-fit radial head arthroplasty in unstable injuries of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94: 805–810.
10.
TaralloLMugnaiRRocchiM,et al.Mason type III radial head fractures treated by anatomic radial head arthroplasty: is this a safe treatment option?Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2017; 103: 183–189.
11.
MouZChenMXiongY,et al.Comminuted radial head fractures treated by the acumed anatomic radial head system. Int J Clin Exp Med2015; 8: 6327–6333.
12.
El SallakhS. Radial head arthroplasty for radial head fractures. J Orthop Trauma2013; 27: e137–e140.
13.
LevyJCFormainiNTKurowickiJ. Outcomes and radiographic findings of anatomic press-fit radial head arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2016; 25: 802–809.
14.
IannuzziNPLeopoldSS. In brief: the Mason classification of radial head fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 1799–1802.
15.
CheungEVSteinmannSP. Surgical approaches to the elbow. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2009; 17: 325–333.
16.
CharalambousCPStanleyJKSiddiqueI,et al.The Wrightington approach to the radial head: biomechanical comparison with the posterolateral approach. J Hand Surg2007; 32: 1576–1582.
17.
LongoUGFranceschiFLoppiniM,et al.Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull2008; 87: 131–161.
18.
PopovicNLemaireRGeorisP, et al.Midterm results with a bipolar radial head prosthesis: radiographic evidence of loosening at the bone-cement interface. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 2469–2476. 2007/11/03.
19.
ShuklaDRFitzsimmonsJSAnKN,et al.Effect of stem length on prosthetic radial head micromotion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012; 21: 1559–1564.
20.
BrobergMAMorreyBF. Results of delayed excision of the radial head after fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am1986; 68: 669–674.
21.
BeingessnerDMDunningCEGordonKD,et al.The effect of radial head excision and arthroplasty on elbow kinematics and stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004; 86: 1730–1739.
22.
SahuDHolmesDMFitzsimmonsJS,et al.Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 456–462.
23.
ChanlalitCShuklaDRFitzsimmonsJS,et al.Influence of prosthetic design on radiocapitellar concavity-compression stability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2011; 20: 885–890.
24.
Rodriguez-QuintanaDComuladaDBRodriguez-QuintanaN,et al.Radial head ingrowth anatomic implant versus smooth stem monoblock implant in acute terrible triad injury: a prospective comparative study. J Orthop Trauma2017; 31: 503–509.
25.
ClokeDJAliAAStanleyD. Early failure of a press-fit, anatomical radial head prosthesis [abstract] BESS 21st Annual Scientific Meeting 2010.
26.
ViswanathAIWattsAC. Survivorship of anatomic press-fit short-stem radial head replacement with a pyrocarbon bearing. Shoulder Elbow2021. doi:10.1177/17585732211024182. on-line ahead of print.
27.
Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, et al. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79: 707–714.
28.
MoonJGShuklaDRFitzsimmonsJS,et al.Stem length and neck resection on fixation strength of press-fit radial head prosthesis: an in vitro model. J Hand Surg Am2019; 44: 1098.e1–1098.e8.
29.
MoonJGBerglundLJDomireZ,et al.Stem diameter and micromotion of press fit radial head prosthesis: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 785–790.
30.
EckardtAAbermanHMCantwellHD,et al.Biological fixation of hydroxyapatite-coated versus grit-blasted titanium hip stems: a canine study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2003; 123: 28–35.
31.
CoathupMJBlunnGWFlynnN,et al.A comparison of bone remodelling around hydroxyapatite-coated, porous-coated and grit-blasted hip arthroplastys retrieved at post-mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br2001; 83: 118–123.
32.
LaflammeMGrenier-GauthierPPLeclercA,et al.Retrospective cohort study on radial head arthroplastys comparing results between smooth and porous stem designs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26: 1316–1324.
33.
HuiskesRWeinansHvan RietbergenB. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res1992; 274: 124–134.
34.
BobynJDGlassmanAHGotoH,et al.The effect of stem stiffness on femoral bone resorption after canine porous-coated total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1990; 261: 196–213.
35.
KachooeiARBaradaranAEbrahimzadehMH,et al.The rate of radial head prosthesis removal or revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am2018; 43: 39–53.e1. Epub 2017 Oct 18
36.
ChenHWBiQ. Surgical outcomes and complications in treatment of terrible triad of the elbow: comparisons of 3 surgical approaches. Med Sci Monit2016; 22: 4354–4362.
37.
BochatKMattinACRicciardoBJ. The efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories in the prevention of heterotopic ossification following elbow trauma surgery. JSES Int2021; 5: 793–796.
38.
StirlingPMalhasARymaszewskiLA,et al.The changing epidemiology of radial head replacement over a 22-year period in Scotland. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2021; 103: 612–614. PMID: 34464579
39.
StrelzowJAAthwalGSMacDermidJC,et al.Effect of concomitant elbow injuries on the outcomes of radial head arthroplasty: a cohort comparison. J Orthop Trauma2017; 31: e327–e333. PMID: 28614146
40.
KoddeIFKaasLFlipsenM,et al.Current concepts in the management of radial head fractures. World J Orthop2015; 6: 954–960. PMID: 26716091; PMCID: PMC4686442
