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
. 2024 Oct 1;106-B(10):1158-1164.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.106B10.BJJ-2024-0407.R1.

The outcomes of surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures

Affiliations

The outcomes of surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures

Tim Jakobi et al. Bone Joint J. .

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of complex radial head fractures at mid-term follow-up, and determine whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) should be recommended for surgical treatment.

Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for complex radial head fractures (Mason type III, ≥ three fragments) were divided into two groups (ORIF and RHA) and propensity score matching was used to individually match patients based on patient characteristics. Ultimately, 84 patients were included in this study. After a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (2.0 to 9.5), patients were invited for clinical and radiological assessment. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire score were evaluated.

Results: Patients treated with ORIF showed significantly better postoperative range of motion for flexion and extension (121.1° (SD 16.4°) vs 108.1° (SD 25.8°); p = 0.018). Postoperative functional scores also showed significantly better results in the ORIF group (MEPS 90.1 (SD 13.6) vs 78 (SD 20.5); p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the complication rate (RHA 23.8% (n = 10) vs ORIF 26.2% (n = 11)). Implant-related complications occurred in six cases (14.3%) in the RHA group and in five cases (11.9%) in the ORIF group.

Conclusion: Irrespective of the patient's age, sex, type of injury, or number of fracture fragments, ORIF of the radial head should be attempted initially, if a stable reconstruction can be achieved, as it seems to provide a superior postoperative outcome for the patient compared to primary RHA. If reconstruction is not feasible, RHA is still a viable alternative. In the surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures, reconstruction shows superior postoperative outcomes compared to RHA. Good postoperative results can be achieved even after failed reconstruction and conversion to secondary RHA. Therefore, we encourage surgeons to favour reconstruction of complex radial head fractures, regardless of injury type or number of fragments, as long as a stable fixation can be achieved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References

    1. Mason ML . Some observations on fractures of the head of the radius with a review of one hundred cases . Br J Surg . 1954 ; 42 ( 172 ): 123 – 132 . 10.1002/bjs.18004217203 13209035
    1. Duckworth AD , Clement ND , Jenkins PJ , Aitken SA , Court-Brown CM , McQueen MM . The epidemiology of radial head and neck fractures . J Hand Surg Am . 2012 ; 37 ( 1 ): 112 – 119 . 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.09.034 22119600
    1. Klug A , Gramlich Y , Wincheringer D , Hoffmann R , Schmidt-Horlohé K . Epidemiology and treatment of radial head fractures: a database analysis of over 70,000 inpatient cases . J Hand Surg Am . 2021 ; 46 ( 1 ): 27 – 35 . 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.05.029 32798123
    1. Duckworth AD , Wickramasinghe NR , Clement ND , Court-Brown CM , McQueen MM . Long-term outcomes of isolated stable radial head fractures . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2014 ; 96-A ( 20 ): 1716 – 1723 . 10.2106/JBJS.M.01354 25320198
    1. Ring D . Displaced, unstable fractures of the radial head: fixation vs. replacement--what is the evidence? Injury . 2008 ; 39 ( 12 ): 1329 – 1337 . 10.1016/j.injury.2008.04.011 18703190