JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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

PURPOSE: 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.

METHODS: We included 30 studies with a total of 1,017 patients out of whom 77 prostheses were removed and 45 prostheses were revised.

RESULTS: 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%).

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app