The Rate of Radial Head Prosthesis Removal or Revision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review with the primary objective to determine the overall incidence of radial head prosthesis removal or revision. Our secondary objectives addressed the incidence of removal or revision based on the type of prosthesis fixation (cemented, uncemented smoot...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.) 2018-01, Vol.43 (1), p.39-53.e1
Hauptverfasser: Kachooei, Amir R., Baradaran, Aslan, Ebrahimzadeh, Mohammad H., van Dijk, C. Niek, Chen, Neal
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review with the primary objective to determine the overall incidence of radial head prosthesis removal or revision. Our secondary objectives addressed the incidence of removal or revision based on the type of prosthesis fixation (cemented, uncemented smooth stem, uncemented press-fit), material (metal, Vitallium, titanium, pyrocarbon), and design (short vs long stem and monopolar vs bipolar), and the reasons for prosthetic removal or revision. We included 30 studies with a total of 1,017 patients out of whom 77 prostheses were removed and 45 prostheses were revised. The pooled rate of radial head prosthesis removal or revision was 10.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.3%–13.6%) with a mean follow-up of 38 months. Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of removal/revision was lowest with the cemented fixation, longer-stem, Vitallium material, and bipolar prosthesis. More than half of the prostheses were removed/revised for excision of the heterotopic ossification (47%) and for the treatment of stiffness and limitation of motion (42%). Other reasons recorded were pain (19%), loosening (16%), overstuffing (13%), instability (12%), infection (8%), and prosthesis disassembly (4%). The current data show that the highest incidence of removal/revision occurred within 2 years after implantation. There was no major difference in the incidence of removal/revision among different designs and materials. Implant removal was often performed as part of a procedure to manage elbow stiffness and heterotopic ossification at the surgeon’s preference, not necessarily because the implant was malfunctioning. It appears that most radial head arthroplasties have an acceptable and comparable mid-term longevity; however, it is unclear whether long-term longevity will differ between devices. Prognostic II.
ISSN:0363-5023
1531-6564
DOI:10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.08.031