Why does radial head arthroplasty fail today? A systematic review of recent literature

Author:

Viveen Jetske12,Kodde Izaak F.3,Heijink Andras4,Koenraadt Koen L. M.5,van den Bekerom Michel P. J.6,Eygendaal Denise23

Affiliation:

1. Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre and University, Adelaide, Australia

2. Upper Limb Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands

3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

5. Foundation for Orthopedic Research, Care & Education, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands

6. Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Since the introduction of the radial head prosthesis (RHP) in 1941, many designs have been introduced. It is not clear whether prosthesis design parameters are related to early failure. The aim of this systematic review is to report on failure modes and to explore the association between implant design and early failure. A search was conducted to identify studies reporting on failed primary RHP. The results are clustered per type of RHP based on: material, fixation technique, modularity, and polarity. Chi-square tests are used to compare reasons for failure between the groups. Thirty-four articles are included involving 152 failed radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) in 152 patients. Eighteen different types of RHPs have been used. The most frequent reasons for revision surgery after RHA are (aseptic) loosening (30%), elbow stiffness (20%) and/or persisting pain (17%). Failure occurs after an average of 34 months (range, 0–348 months; median, 14 months). Press-fit prostheses fail at a higher ratio because of symptomatic loosening than intentionally loose-fit prostheses and prostheses that are fixed with an expandable stem (p < 0.01). Because of the many different types of RHP used to date and the limited numbers and evidence on early failure of RHA, the current data provide no evidence for a specific RHP design. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:659-667. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180099

Publisher

Bioscientifica

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

Cited by 26 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3