Abstract
ABSTRACTPurpose: To compare clinical outcomes of unipolar and bipolar radial head prosthesis in the treatment of patients with radial head fracture. Materials and Methods: Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar databases were searched until April 18, 2016 using the following search terms: radial head fracture, elbow fracture, radial head arthroplasty, implants, prosthesis, unipolar, bipolar, cemented, and press-fit. Randomized controlled trials, retrospective, and cohort studies were included. Results: The Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score, radiologic assessment, ROM, and grip strength following elbow replacement were similar between prosthetic devices. The pooled mean excellent/good ranking of MEPS was 0.78 for unipolar and 0.73 for bipolar radial head arthroplasty, and the pooled mean MEPS was 86.9 and 79.9, respectively. DASH scores for unipolar and bipolar prosthesis were 19.0 and 16.3, respectively. Range of motion outcomes were similar between groups, with both groups have comparable risk of flexion arc, flexion, extension deficit, rotation arc, pronation, and supination (p values <0.001 for both unipolar and bipolar prosthesis). However, bipolar radial head prosthesis was associated with an increased chance of heterotopic ossification and lucency (p values ≤0.049) while unipolar prosthesis was not (p values ≥0.088). Both groups had risk for development of capitellar osteopenia or erosion/wear (p values ≤0.039). Conclusion: Unipolar and bipolar radial head prostheses were similar with respect to clinical outcomes. Additional comparative studies are necessary to further compare different radial head prostheses used to treat radial head fracture.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.