RADIAL HEAD ARTHROPLASTY FOR RADIAL HEAD FRACTURE IS ASSOCIATED WITH GREATER SURVIVORSHIP THAN OPEN REDUCTION INTERNAL FIXATION: POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Radial head fractures account for one-third of all fractures around the elbow. Despite this, there remains significant debate with respect to the optimal treatment of unstable radial head fractures with significant articular displacement, comminution, or mechanical block to motion. Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) are the current surgical treatments employed in the management of these fractures. Systematic reviews comparing RHA to ORIF have noted greater cost-effectiveness, fewer reoperations, lower complication rates and higher patient satisfaction among patients undergoing RHA. However, these findings are largely based on small retrospective data. Moreover, concerns exist regarding the longevity of the radial head implant, especially among young patients who undergo RHA. A population-based cohort study was performed utilizing administrative healthcare data from Ontario, Canada. All adults, 16 years of age and older in Canada's most populous province, who sustained a radial head fracture between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2020 were identified. Patients undergoing ORIF, RHA or radial head excision for a radial head fracture were followed for subsequent reoperation. An unadjusted competing risk survival analysis was performed to tally the cumulative incidence of all-cause revision procedures. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify the patient-, provider- and fracture-related factors associated with reoperation following ORIF and RHA. A total of 3159 patients underwent surgical management of a radial head fracture during the study period. The majority of patients were female (55.9%). The mean age of patients who underwent ORIF, RHA and excision was, 43.9, 51.1, 52.6 years, respectively. The rate of reoperation in the ORIF, RHA and excision cohort was 7.7%, 3.8% and 0.8%. A statistically significant difference in cumulative incidence function (i.e., survivorship) was noted favoring RHA over ORIF (P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). The most frequently performed secondary procedure was removal of hardware. Other secondary procedures included, total elbow arthroplasty, elbow arthroscopy, radial head replacement, irrigation & debridement of the radius, capsular release, radial head excision, excision of heterotopic ossification and loose body removal. The odds of reoperation among those undergoing ORIF increased with a greater comorbidity score (adjusted OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04–2.07, P = 0.03) and surgery performed at a teaching hospital (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.22–2.53, P = 0.0023). The odds of reoperation among those who had a RHA increased when surgery was performed overnight (between midnight and 7AM) (adjusted OR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.10–9.70, P = 0.03) and decreased when RHA was performed in combination with a ligament repair (adjusted OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42–0.94, P = 0.02). Radial head fractures treated with radial head arthroplasty have a significantly lower rate of reoperation and greater survivorship. Concomitant ligament repair at the time of radial head arthroplasty may be a protective factor, while performing a radial head arthroplasty overnight (between midnight and 7AM) may increase the odds of reoperation. Prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the key predictors for long-term survivorship of RHA, especially among young patients. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».