Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 1:10:1041531.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1041531. eCollection 2022.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on different stem fixation methods of radial head prostheses during long-term follow-up

Guang Yang  1 , Shangzhe Li  1 , Hailong Zhang  1 , Yi Lu  1
Affiliations

A systematic review and meta-analysis on different stem fixation methods of radial head prostheses during long-term follow-up

Guang Yang et al. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. .

Abstract

Background: Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is typically performed for non-reconstructible radial head fractures with or without valgus stability. The fixation methods can be divided into cemented rigid fixation, such as screw fixation, and uncemented micromovement fixation, including smooth stem, press-fit, expanded device, in-growth stem, and grit-blasted stem fixations. Different fixation methods may impact long-term clinical outcomes and cause complications. This study aimed to compare the long-term follow-up outcomes of cemented and uncemented radial head prostheses. Methods: A computerized literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for studies on radial head prostheses, replacement, and arthroplasty published from inception to April 2022. The prostheses fixation method was divided into cemented and uncemented fixation groups. The outcomes of interest included the participant characteristics, prostheses types, clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, and complication rates during long-term follow-up. Results: A total of 57 studies involving 2050 patients who underwent RHA were included in our analysis. Cemented fixation was used in 23 of these studies, uncemented fixation in 35 studies, and both cemented and uncemented fixations in one study. Both fixation groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes after treatment. In particular, both the reoperation and complication rates were lower in the uncemented fixation group (12% and 22%, respectively) than that in the cemented fixation group (20% and 29%, respectively). Among the studies, uncemented monopolar fixation had the lowest reoperation rate (14%), while cemented monopolar fixation had the highest reoperation rate (36%). Regarding complication rates, uncemented bipolar fixation yielded the lowest rate (12%), while cemented bipolar fixation yielded the highest rate (34%). The range of motion and clinical outcome scores were good in both groups. Conclusion: Uncemented radial head prostheses had lower reoperation and complication rates than cemented prostheses. In particular, uncemented monopolar prostheses may yield the lowest reoperation rate, while uncemented bipolar prostheses may yield the lowest overall complication rate.

Keywords: arthroplasty; fixation; prostheses; radial head; replacement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer, JC, declared a shared parent affiliation with the authors to the handling editor at the time of review.

Figures

FIGURE. 1
FIGURE. 1
PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.
FIGURE. 2
FIGURE. 2
Forest plot for rate of reoperation of cemented fixation.
FIGURE. 3
FIGURE. 3
Forest plot for rate of reoperation of uncemented fixation.
FIGURE. 4
FIGURE. 4
Forest plot for rate of complication of cemented fixation.
FIGURE. 5
FIGURE. 5
Forest plot for rate of complication of uncemented fixation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Acevedo D. C., Paxton E. S., Kukelyansky I., Abboud J., Ramsey M. (2014). Radial head arthroplasty: State of the art. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 22 (10), 633–642. 10.5435/JAAOS-22-10-633 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Agyeman K. D., Damodar D., Watkins I., Dodds S. D. (2019). Does radial head implant fixation affect functional outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. shoulder Elb. Surg. 28 (1), 126–130. 10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.032 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antoni M., Kempf J. F., Clavert P. (2020). Comparison of bipolar and monopolar radial head prostheses in elbow fracture-dislocation. Orthop. Traumatology Surg. Res. 106 (2), 311–317. 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.10.027 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baek C. S., Kim B. S., Kim D. H., Cho C. H. (2020). Short- to mid-term outcomes of radial head replacement for complex radial head fractures. Clin. Shoulder Elb. 23 (4), 183–189. 10.5397/cise.2020.00325 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burkhart K. J., Mattyasovszky S. G., Runkel M., Schwarz C., Küchle R., Hessmann M. H., et al. (2010). Mid- to long-term results after bipolar radial head arthroplasty. J. shoulder Elb. Surg. 19 (7), 965–972. 10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.022 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types