Is partial excision of the radial head safe and effective in all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad fractures?

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.5397/cise.2024.00703
Hyung Gyu Cho, Gyeong Hoon Lim, Min Su Joo, Jae Won Kim, Jun Ho Park, Jeong Woo Kim
{"title":"Is partial excision of the radial head safe and effective in all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad fractures?","authors":"Hyung Gyu Cho, Gyeong Hoon Lim, Min Su Joo, Jae Won Kim, Jun Ho Park, Jeong Woo Kim","doi":"10.5397/cise.2024.00703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results of all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries followed-up for a minimum of 5 years and investigate how arthroscopic partial excision for radial head fractures affects the results at the final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with terrible triad injuries who underwent all-arthroscopic treatment between January 2011 and June 2018. In group I, we performed conservative or arthroscopic fixation of stable radial head fractures, while in group II, arthroscopic partial excision of unstable radial head fractures involving <30%-50% of the articular surface area was performed. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale score and assessment of instability, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using x-rays, and the integrity of the repaired lateral collateral ligament complex was confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two patients with an average age of 49.5±16.2 years met the inclusion criteria and were followed-up for a mean of 82.7±22.2 months. Twenty patients were assigned to group I and 12 patients to group II. Clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between the two groups at the final follow-up (P>0.05). On radiological evaluation, more heterotopic ossifications were found in the radial head excision group (group II, 66.7% versus group I, 35%, P=0.02); however, there was no significant difference in ROM between the two groups (P>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries, arthroscopic partial excision of the radial head did not seem to have a significant impact on elbow joint stability. Level of evidence: III.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2024.00703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results of all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries followed-up for a minimum of 5 years and investigate how arthroscopic partial excision for radial head fractures affects the results at the final follow-up.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with terrible triad injuries who underwent all-arthroscopic treatment between January 2011 and June 2018. In group I, we performed conservative or arthroscopic fixation of stable radial head fractures, while in group II, arthroscopic partial excision of unstable radial head fractures involving <30%-50% of the articular surface area was performed. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale score and assessment of instability, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using x-rays, and the integrity of the repaired lateral collateral ligament complex was confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging.

Results: Thirty-two patients with an average age of 49.5±16.2 years met the inclusion criteria and were followed-up for a mean of 82.7±22.2 months. Twenty patients were assigned to group I and 12 patients to group II. Clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between the two groups at the final follow-up (P>0.05). On radiological evaluation, more heterotopic ossifications were found in the radial head excision group (group II, 66.7% versus group I, 35%, P=0.02); however, there was no significant difference in ROM between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions: In all-arthroscopic treatment of terrible triad injuries, arthroscopic partial excision of the radial head did not seem to have a significant impact on elbow joint stability. Level of evidence: III.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在全关节镜下治疗可怕的三联症骨折时,桡骨头部分切除术是否安全有效?
研究背景我们的研究旨在评估对可怕的三联症损伤进行至少 5 年随访的全关节镜治疗的临床和放射学结果,并探讨关节镜下桡骨头骨折部分切除术对最终随访结果的影响:我们回顾性研究了2011年1月至2018年6月期间接受全关节镜治疗的连续性可怕三联症损伤患者。在 I 组中,我们对稳定的桡骨头骨折进行了保守或关节镜固定,而在 II 组中,我们对涉及结果的不稳定桡骨头骨折进行了关节镜下部分切除:32 名患者符合纳入标准,平均年龄(49.5±16.2)岁,平均随访时间(82.7±22.2)个月。20 名患者被分配到第一组,12 名患者被分配到第二组。最终随访结果显示,两组患者的临床结果无明显差异(P>0.05)。在放射学评估中,桡骨头切除术组发现了更多的异位骨化(II组66.7%,I组35%,P=0.02);然而,两组患者的ROM无明显差异(P>0.05):结论:在对可怕的三联症损伤进行全关节镜治疗时,关节镜下桡骨头部分切除术似乎对肘关节稳定性没有显著影响。证据等级:证据等级:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Descriptive analysis of total elbow arthroplasty for distal humerus fractures: 30-day complications. Learning curve for the open Latarjet procedure: a single-surgeon study. Outcomes of lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus latissimus dorsi transfer for external rotation deficit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reconsidering the clinical outcomes of the stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty design implant. The impact of supraspinatus tear on subscapularis muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1