Heterotopic ossification following severe radial head fractures: Clinical outcome and associated factors.

IF 1.9 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Joint diseases and related surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-02 Epub Date: 2024-12-18 DOI:10.52312/jdrs.2025.1992
Cornelius Sebastian Fischer, Johannes Porsche, Diane Leyder, Daniel Schüll, Tina Histing, Patrick Ziegler
{"title":"Heterotopic ossification following severe radial head fractures: Clinical outcome and associated factors.","authors":"Cornelius Sebastian Fischer, Johannes Porsche, Diane Leyder, Daniel Schüll, Tina Histing, Patrick Ziegler","doi":"10.52312/jdrs.2025.1992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcome, prevalence, severity, location, range of motion, and possible risk factors of heterotopic ossification (HO) following severe radial head fractures.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, 73 patients (40 males, 33 females; mean age: 51.4±15 years; range, 20 to 82 years) with Mason-Johnston type 3 and 4 radial head fractures were surgically treated with osteosynthesis or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) between September 2014 and February 2021. Fifty-one were examined in person, while 22 participated via questionnaire. The clinical outcome was assessed by the range of motion, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Operative and postoperative details and the intake of HO prophylaxis were reviewed. Heterotopic ossification severity and location was evaluated on radiographs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Heterotopic ossification was present in 52.1%, while in 31.5% of all participants, RHA was needed. Overall, 46.6% received additional ligamental refixation. The mean time to surgery was 8.9±11.9 days, and the mean DASH was 13.7±16.6. In patients treated with osteosynthesis, more HO was observed for Mason-Johnston type 4 injuries compared to Mason-Johnston type 3 injuries (p=0.028). Overall, more HO was present in Mason-Johnston type 4 injuries (63.6%) compared to Mason-Johnston type 3 injuries (42.5%), without reaching significance (p=0.072). No significant association between HO and time to surgery (p=0.716), implantation of RHA (p=0.127), or ligamental refixation (p=0.121) was detected. Regardless of intake of HO prophylaxis, nearly the same amount of HO (51.7% vs. 53.8%) was present. No differences between the HO and non-HO group were detected in the DASH (p=0.553) and the SF-36 (physical component, p=0.728; mental component, p=0.275).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Over 50% surgically treated radial head fractures classified as Mason-Johnston types 3 and 4 developed HO, while more severe injuries led to a higher prevalence of HO. No increased rates of HO were determined for delayed surgery, surgical treatment methods, and use of HO prophylaxis. Therefore, regular HO prophylaxis might not be needed. Additionally, no significant differences in functional scores and quality of life were detected between patients with and without HO.</p>","PeriodicalId":73560,"journal":{"name":"Joint diseases and related surgery","volume":"36 1","pages":"47-55"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734851/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint diseases and related surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2025.1992","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcome, prevalence, severity, location, range of motion, and possible risk factors of heterotopic ossification (HO) following severe radial head fractures.

Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, 73 patients (40 males, 33 females; mean age: 51.4±15 years; range, 20 to 82 years) with Mason-Johnston type 3 and 4 radial head fractures were surgically treated with osteosynthesis or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) between September 2014 and February 2021. Fifty-one were examined in person, while 22 participated via questionnaire. The clinical outcome was assessed by the range of motion, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Operative and postoperative details and the intake of HO prophylaxis were reviewed. Heterotopic ossification severity and location was evaluated on radiographs.

Results: Heterotopic ossification was present in 52.1%, while in 31.5% of all participants, RHA was needed. Overall, 46.6% received additional ligamental refixation. The mean time to surgery was 8.9±11.9 days, and the mean DASH was 13.7±16.6. In patients treated with osteosynthesis, more HO was observed for Mason-Johnston type 4 injuries compared to Mason-Johnston type 3 injuries (p=0.028). Overall, more HO was present in Mason-Johnston type 4 injuries (63.6%) compared to Mason-Johnston type 3 injuries (42.5%), without reaching significance (p=0.072). No significant association between HO and time to surgery (p=0.716), implantation of RHA (p=0.127), or ligamental refixation (p=0.121) was detected. Regardless of intake of HO prophylaxis, nearly the same amount of HO (51.7% vs. 53.8%) was present. No differences between the HO and non-HO group were detected in the DASH (p=0.553) and the SF-36 (physical component, p=0.728; mental component, p=0.275).

Conclusion: Over 50% surgically treated radial head fractures classified as Mason-Johnston types 3 and 4 developed HO, while more severe injuries led to a higher prevalence of HO. No increased rates of HO were determined for delayed surgery, surgical treatment methods, and use of HO prophylaxis. Therefore, regular HO prophylaxis might not be needed. Additionally, no significant differences in functional scores and quality of life were detected between patients with and without HO.

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
严重桡骨头骨折后异位骨化:临床结果及相关因素。
目的:本研究旨在评估严重桡骨头骨折后异位骨化(HO)的临床结果、患病率、严重程度、位置、活动范围和可能的危险因素。患者与方法:回顾性研究73例患者(男40例,女33例;平均年龄:51.4±15岁;在2014年9月至2021年2月期间接受骨融合术或桡骨头置换术(RHA)治疗的Mason-Johnston型3和4型桡骨头骨折患者,年龄在20至82岁之间。51人亲自接受了调查,22人通过问卷参与了调查。临床结果通过活动度、手臂、肩部和手部残疾问卷(DASH)和36项简短健康调查(SF-36)进行评估。回顾了手术和术后的细节以及HO预防的摄入量。通过x线片评估异位骨化的严重程度和位置。结果:52.1%的参与者出现异位骨化,而31.5%的参与者需要RHA。总的来说,46.6%的患者接受了额外的韧带再固定。平均手术时间8.9±11.9天,平均DASH为13.7±16.6。在接受骨融合术治疗的患者中,Mason-Johnston 4型损伤的HO发生率高于Mason-Johnston 3型损伤(p=0.028)。总体而言,Mason-Johnston 4型损伤的HO发生率(63.6%)高于Mason-Johnston 3型损伤(42.5%),但差异无统计学意义(p=0.072)。HO与手术时间(p=0.716)、RHA植入(p=0.127)或韧带再固定(p=0.121)无显著相关性。无论是否采取了HO预防措施,存在几乎相同数量的HO (51.7% vs. 53.8%)。HO组与非HO组在DASH (p=0.553)和SF-36(物理成分,p=0.728;心理成分,p=0.275)。结论:Mason-Johnston 3型和4型桡骨头骨折术后发生HO的患者超过50%,损伤越严重,HO患病率越高。延迟手术、手术治疗方法和HO预防使用均未发现HO发生率增加。因此,可能不需要常规的HO预防。此外,在有和没有HO的患者之间,功能评分和生活质量没有显著差异。
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
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Arteriovenous fistula and pseudoaneurysm in a pediatric patient with persistent postoperative hemarthrosis: A rare complication following arthroscopic repair of a bucket handle medial meniscal tear. Clinical results of knee juxta-articular giant-cell tumors treated with bone cement filling and internal fixation after extensive curettage. Effect of supplementation with type 1 and type 3 collagen peptide and type 2 hydrolyzed collagen on osteoarthritis-related pain, quality of life, and physical function: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Does the use of robotic technology in knee arthroplasty provide superior clinical outcomes? Effect of posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining implants on three-dimensional kinematic characteristics after total knee arthroplasty.
×
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