D Scoscina1, G Facco2, P Luciani2, N Setaro2, L Senesi3, M Martiniani4, A P Gigante2. 1. Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Via Tronto 10/a, 60020, Torrette Di Ancona, Italy. scoscinadalila@gmail.com. 2. Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Via Tronto 10/a, 60020, Torrette Di Ancona, Italy. 3. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy. 4. Clinic of Adult and Paediatric Orthopaedics, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Ospedali Riuniti Di Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study focused on a comparison of mid-term clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes of adults treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head prosthesis (RHP) and resection (RHR). METHODS: The retrospective evaluation concerned 47 surgically treated patients after a mean follow-up of 53 months. All patients were grouped according to the surgical procedure performed: 15 in the RHP group, 16 in the ORIF group and 16 in the RHR group. At the follow-up, outcome assessment was based on radiographs, range of motion (ROM) and functional rating scores. RESULTS: Patients treated by RHR had significantly higher mean age and shorter operation time than other two groups. Compared to ROM, flexion, extension and pronation were significantly worse in patients treated by ORIF than those in the RHP group and the RHR group. Supination was significantly better in the RHP group. However, no statistical differences were observed in functional rating scores among the three groups. Regarding complications, instability was the only cause of revision surgery in the RHP group and the RHR group. On the other hand, the ORIF group revision rate was 50% and secondary displacement was the most frequent cause of failure. CONCLUSION: The ORIF group did not show good results with greater elbow stiffness and higher revision rate than the other two techniques. RHR may be suitable for elderly patients with lower functional demands as it reported good clinical results and reduced operation time.
PURPOSE: This study focused on a comparison of mid-term clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes of adults treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head prosthesis (RHP) and resection (RHR). METHODS: The retrospective evaluation concerned 47 surgically treated patients after a mean follow-up of 53 months. All patients were grouped according to the surgical procedure performed: 15 in the RHP group, 16 in the ORIF group and 16 in the RHR group. At the follow-up, outcome assessment was based on radiographs, range of motion (ROM) and functional rating scores. RESULTS: Patients treated by RHR had significantly higher mean age and shorter operation time than other two groups. Compared to ROM, flexion, extension and pronation were significantly worse in patients treated by ORIF than those in the RHP group and the RHR group. Supination was significantly better in the RHP group. However, no statistical differences were observed in functional rating scores among the three groups. Regarding complications, instability was the only cause of revision surgery in the RHP group and the RHR group. On the other hand, the ORIF group revision rate was 50% and secondary displacement was the most frequent cause of failure. CONCLUSION: The ORIF group did not show good results with greater elbow stiffness and higher revision rate than the other two techniques. RHR may be suitable for elderly patients with lower functional demands as it reported good clinical results and reduced operation time.
Authors: Wendy Bruinsma; Izaäk Kodde; Robert-Jan O de Muinck Keizer; Peter Kloen; Anneluuk L C Lindenhovius; Jos P A M Vroemen; Robert Haverlag; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Hugo W Bolhuis; Pieter H J Bullens; Sven A G Meylaerts; Peer van der Zwaal; Philip E Steller; Michiel Hageman; David C Ring; Dennis den Hartog; Eric R Hammacher; Graham J W King; George S Athwal; Ken J Faber; Darren Drosdowech; Ruby Grewal; J Carel Goslings; Niels W L Schep; Denise Eygendaal Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 2.362