Radial neck osteolysis after radial head replacement: Functional impact and risk factors

Abstract

IntroductionOnset of radial neck osteolysis (RNO) has been reported after radial head replacement (RHR), but data are sparse regarding impact and risk factors. We therefore conducted a retrospective study, 1) to quantify RNO after RHR, 2) to assess clinical and radiological impact, and 3) to identify risk factors. HypothesisRNO prevalence is high, but functional impact is limited. Material and methodA single-center retrospective study included all patients undergoing RHR for acute radial head fracture between 2008 and 2017: 53 patients, with a mean age of 53.8±15.7 years [range, 21–85 years]. At a minimum 2 years’ follow-up, patients were assessed clinically on joint range of motion and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and radiologically on standard radiographs. Associations between RNO and various parameters were assessed. ResultsAt a mean 46.7±19.8 months’ follow-up [range, 24–84 months], RNO was found in 54.7% of cases (29/53), with mean 4.0 ±2.8mm distal extension [range, 1.2–13.4mm], corresponding to 13.4±7.3% of stem height [range, 2.7–27.7%].RNO at last follow-up was not significantly associated with reduced flexion-extension (121.9° versus 114.0°; p=0.11), pronation-supination (152.6° versus 138.3°; p=0.25) or MEPS (84.7 versus 84.8; p=0.97), or with higher rates of postoperative complications (11/29 (37.9%) versus 7/24 (29.2%); p=0.782) or surgical revision (11/29 (37.9%) versus 10/24 (41.7%); p=0.503).RNO was significantly associated with cementless fixation (19/29 (65.5%) versus 7/24 (29.2%); p=0.01), unipolar prosthesis (21/29 (72.4%) versus 7/24 (29.2%); p=0.002), high filling-ratio, whether proximal (88% versus 77%; p=0.002), middle (84% versus 75%; p=0.007) or distal (69% versus 59%; p=0.032), and shorter radial stem (33.2mm versus 46.3mm; p=0.011). No demographic parameters showed significant association with RNO at last follow-up. ConclusionRNO was frequent after RHR, but without clinical or radiological impact in the present series. The risk factors identified here argue for involvement of stress shielding. Level of evidenceIV, cohort study.