PURPOSE: The primary objective was to describe the reasons for surgical re-intervention after radial head arthroplasty. The secondary objective was to analyze the radiographic and clinical outcomes after surgical re-intervention at the elbow with implant conservation. METHODS: Among the 70 radial head arthroplasties with bipolar radial head implant performed between 2002 and 2014, 29 required surgical re-interventions. Reasons for surgical re-intervention were gathered from operative notes and follow-up documentation. Patients who underwent re-intervention with implant retention were reassessed via clinical and radiographic examinations by an independent reviewer. RESULTS: Twenty nine re-operations were performed at a mean follow-up of 16 ± 11.7 months (0.2-36 months). The prosthesis was removed in 18 cases and retained in 11. There was a significant difference in mean time to re-intervention between the implant removal and preservation groups, 23.1 ± 8.3 months (7-36 months) and 4.4 ± 4.7 months (0.2-13 months), respectively (p < 0.001). The primary reason for surgical re-intervention was painful loosening (13 cases). Radio-capitellar instability was the most frequent reason for re-intervention with implant retention (5 cases). Midterm quickDASH and MEPS after surgical re-intervention with implant retention were 15.4 ± 5.4 and 82.27 ± 7.3, respectively. At least one degenerative lesion was reported in nine cases (81.8%) (i.e. 5 periprosthetic osteolysis, 5 capitellar wear, 5 periarticular heterotopic ossification). CONCLUSIONS: Painful loosening and capitellar instability are the primary reasons for surgical re-intervention with or without implant removal. Midterm clinical results are favourable despite an elevated rate of degenerative lesions after surgical re-intervention with implant retention.
PURPOSE: The primary objective was to describe the reasons for surgical re-intervention after radial head arthroplasty. The secondary objective was to analyze the radiographic and clinical outcomes after surgical re-intervention at the elbow with implant conservation. METHODS: Among the 70 radial head arthroplasties with bipolar radial head implant performed between 2002 and 2014, 29 required surgical re-interventions. Reasons for surgical re-intervention were gathered from operative notes and follow-up documentation. Patients who underwent re-intervention with implant retention were reassessed via clinical and radiographic examinations by an independent reviewer. RESULTS: Twenty nine re-operations were performed at a mean follow-up of 16 ± 11.7 months (0.2-36 months). The prosthesis was removed in 18 cases and retained in 11. There was a significant difference in mean time to re-intervention between the implant removal and preservation groups, 23.1 ± 8.3 months (7-36 months) and 4.4 ± 4.7 months (0.2-13 months), respectively (p < 0.001). The primary reason for surgical re-intervention was painful loosening (13 cases). Radio-capitellar instability was the most frequent reason for re-intervention with implant retention (5 cases). Midterm quickDASH and MEPS after surgical re-intervention with implant retention were 15.4 ± 5.4 and 82.27 ± 7.3, respectively. At least one degenerative lesion was reported in nine cases (81.8%) (i.e. 5 periprosthetic osteolysis, 5 capitellar wear, 5 periarticular heterotopic ossification). CONCLUSIONS: Painful loosening and capitellar instability are the primary reasons for surgical re-intervention with or without implant removal. Midterm clinical results are favourable despite an elevated rate of degenerative lesions after surgical re-intervention with implant retention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complication; Prosthesis; Radial head; Radial head fracture; Removal; Revision
Authors: Jonathan P Marsh; Ruby Grewal; Kenneth J Faber; Darren S Drosdowech; George S Athwal; Graham J W King Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Cholawish Chanlalit; Dave R Shukla; James S Fitzsimmons; Andrew R Thoreson; Kai-Nan An; Shawn W O'Driscoll Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Andrew D Duckworth; Neil R Wickramasinghe; Nicholas D Clement; Charles M Court-Brown; Margaret M McQueen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Valentin Neuhaus; Dimitrios C Christoforou; Amir Reza Kachooei; Jesse B Jupiter; David C Ring; Chaitanya S Mudgal Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2015-04
Authors: Pierre Laumonerie; Meagan E Tibbo; Panagiotis Kerezoudis; Marc Olivier Gauci; Nicolas Reina; Nicolas Bonnevialle; Pierre Mansat Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Pierre Laumonerie; Meagan E Tibbo; Nicolas Reina; Thuy Trang Pham; Nicolas Bonnevialle; Pierre Mansat Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Pierre Laumonerie; Nicolas Reina; Claudia Gutierrez; Stephanie Delclaux; Meagan E Tibbo; Nicolas Bonnevialle; Pierre Mansat Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.075