Amir R Kachooei1, Aslan Baradaran2, Mohammad H Ebrahimzadeh2, C Niek van Dijk3, Neal Chen4. 1. Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Electronic address: arkachooei@gmail.com. 2. Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review with the primary objective to determine the overall incidence of radial head prosthesis removal or revision. Our secondary objectives addressed the incidence of removal or revision based on the type of prosthesis fixation (cemented, uncemented smooth stem, uncemented press-fit), material (metal, Vitallium, titanium, pyrocarbon), and design (short vs long stem and monopolar vs bipolar), and the reasons for prosthetic removal or revision. METHODS: We included 30 studies with a total of 1,017 patients out of whom 77 prostheses were removed and 45 prostheses were revised. RESULTS: The pooled rate of radial head prosthesis removal or revision was 10.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.3%-13.6%) with a mean follow-up of 38 months. Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of removal/revision was lowest with the cemented fixation, longer-stem, Vitallium material, and bipolar prosthesis. More than half of the prostheses were removed/revised for excision of the heterotopic ossification (47%) and for the treatment of stiffness and limitation of motion (42%). Other reasons recorded were pain (19%), loosening (16%), overstuffing (13%), instability (12%), infection (8%), and prosthesis disassembly (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The current data show that the highest incidence of removal/revision occurred within 2 years after implantation. There was no major difference in the incidence of removal/revision among different designs and materials. Implant removal was often performed as part of a procedure to manage elbow stiffness and heterotopic ossification at the surgeon's preference, not necessarily because the implant was malfunctioning. It appears that most radial head arthroplasties have an acceptable and comparable mid-term longevity; however, it is unclear whether long-term longevity will differ between devices. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.
PURPOSE: We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review with the primary objective to determine the overall incidence of radial head prosthesis removal or revision. Our secondary objectives addressed the incidence of removal or revision based on the type of prosthesis fixation (cemented, uncemented smooth stem, uncemented press-fit), material (metal, Vitallium, titanium, pyrocarbon), and design (short vs long stem and monopolar vs bipolar), and the reasons for prosthetic removal or revision. METHODS: We included 30 studies with a total of 1,017 patients out of whom 77 prostheses were removed and 45 prostheses were revised. RESULTS: The pooled rate of radial head prosthesis removal or revision was 10.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.3%-13.6%) with a mean follow-up of 38 months. Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of removal/revision was lowest with the cemented fixation, longer-stem, Vitallium material, and bipolar prosthesis. More than half of the prostheses were removed/revised for excision of the heterotopic ossification (47%) and for the treatment of stiffness and limitation of motion (42%). Other reasons recorded were pain (19%), loosening (16%), overstuffing (13%), instability (12%), infection (8%), and prosthesis disassembly (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The current data show that the highest incidence of removal/revision occurred within 2 years after implantation. There was no major difference in the incidence of removal/revision among different designs and materials. Implant removal was often performed as part of a procedure to manage elbow stiffness and heterotopic ossification at the surgeon's preference, not necessarily because the implant was malfunctioning. It appears that most radial head arthroplasties have an acceptable and comparable mid-term longevity; however, it is unclear whether long-term longevity will differ between devices. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.
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: Caroline D Cristofaro; Thomas H Carter; Neil R Wickramasinghe; Margaret M McQueen; Timothy O White; Andrew D Duckworth Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jetske Viveen; Izaak F Kodde; Andras Heijink; Koen L M Koenraadt; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Denise Eygendaal Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2020-01-28