Cargando…

Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: The terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) remains challenging to manage and has been associated with high complication rates and poor outcomes. There is a trend towards performing radial head replacement (REP) in preference to radial head reconstruction (REC) as arthroplasty provid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kyriacou, Steven, Gupta, Yash, Bains, Harraj Kaur, Singh, Harvinder Pal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6420892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30656475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03111-z
_version_ 1783404149053849600
author Kyriacou, Steven
Gupta, Yash
Bains, Harraj Kaur
Singh, Harvinder Pal
author_facet Kyriacou, Steven
Gupta, Yash
Bains, Harraj Kaur
Singh, Harvinder Pal
author_sort Kyriacou, Steven
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) remains challenging to manage and has been associated with high complication rates and poor outcomes. There is a trend towards performing radial head replacement (REP) in preference to radial head reconstruction (REC) as arthroplasty provides early stability and may allow mobilisation sooner, potentially resulting in a better functional outcome. This systematic review compares the outcome of patients with TTIE treated with either REC or REP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for studies published in English involving at least ten patients exclusively with a TTIE managed operatively, including both patients with either REC or REP. Data collection was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis protocol. The outcomes of interest were Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and range of motion (ROM). Post-operative complications were also compared. RESULTS: 9 studies involving 210 patients were included (98 REPs and 112 RECs). There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.51) demonstrated between in the mean MEPS of the REP group (mean 88.6) and REC group (mean 88.5). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference demonstrated between the REP and REC groups in terms of ROM. The risk of re-operation was high in both the REP (18.4%) and REC (17.9%) group. The overall complication rate of all patients included in the study was high (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable results with good outcomes in terms of functional scores and ROM can be achieved with both REP and REC when treating TTIE, although the re-operation rate for both remains relatively high. Given there is no apparent clear advantage between the two treatment groups, we would suggest that REC should be performed when a satisfactory fixation can be achieved as the longevity of REP in young patients with a TTIE is currently uncertain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6420892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64208922019-04-03 Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis Kyriacou, Steven Gupta, Yash Bains, Harraj Kaur Singh, Harvinder Pal Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Trauma Surgery INTRODUCTION: The terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) remains challenging to manage and has been associated with high complication rates and poor outcomes. There is a trend towards performing radial head replacement (REP) in preference to radial head reconstruction (REC) as arthroplasty provides early stability and may allow mobilisation sooner, potentially resulting in a better functional outcome. This systematic review compares the outcome of patients with TTIE treated with either REC or REP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for studies published in English involving at least ten patients exclusively with a TTIE managed operatively, including both patients with either REC or REP. Data collection was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis protocol. The outcomes of interest were Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and range of motion (ROM). Post-operative complications were also compared. RESULTS: 9 studies involving 210 patients were included (98 REPs and 112 RECs). There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.51) demonstrated between in the mean MEPS of the REP group (mean 88.6) and REC group (mean 88.5). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference demonstrated between the REP and REC groups in terms of ROM. The risk of re-operation was high in both the REP (18.4%) and REC (17.9%) group. The overall complication rate of all patients included in the study was high (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable results with good outcomes in terms of functional scores and ROM can be achieved with both REP and REC when treating TTIE, although the re-operation rate for both remains relatively high. Given there is no apparent clear advantage between the two treatment groups, we would suggest that REC should be performed when a satisfactory fixation can be achieved as the longevity of REP in young patients with a TTIE is currently uncertain. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-01-17 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6420892/ /pubmed/30656475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03111-z Text en © The Author(s) 2019 OpenAccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Trauma Surgery
Kyriacou, Steven
Gupta, Yash
Bains, Harraj Kaur
Singh, Harvinder Pal
Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort radial head replacement versus reconstruction for the treatment of the terrible triad injury of the elbow: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Trauma Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6420892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30656475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03111-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kyriacousteven radialheadreplacementversusreconstructionforthetreatmentoftheterribletriadinjuryoftheelbowasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT guptayash radialheadreplacementversusreconstructionforthetreatmentoftheterribletriadinjuryoftheelbowasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bainsharrajkaur radialheadreplacementversusreconstructionforthetreatmentoftheterribletriadinjuryoftheelbowasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT singhharvinderpal radialheadreplacementversusreconstructionforthetreatmentoftheterribletriadinjuryoftheelbowasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis