ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2024
Revision of Failed Radial Head Arthroplasty.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The supinator approach to the lateral elbow: a technique description and literature review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2024Article
- Revision management of a 17-year-old patient initially treated with radial head excision following terrible triad injury with associated Essex Lopresti.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevision of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) may be indicated in cases of prosthesis loosening and malposition. Inherent difficulties in revision surgery include poor bone stock and disrupted soft tissue envelope. Although cases of RHA used for revision of failed RHA are rare, there is reasonable expectation for increasing frequency of these cases due to the increasing incidence of primary RHA. Furthermore, there is an increasing demand for postoperative recovery of function; thus, surgeons may consider revising a failed RHA to a new RHA. We report on series of failed RHA which were revised to a new radial head prosthesis.
methodsA retrospective review was performed at multiple institutions for a single radial head prosthesis used for revision of a failed radial head prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up.
resultsAcross 11 patients at a mean follow-up of 45.1 months, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 81.7; mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were 24.4; and mean Visual Analog Scale for pain was 0.6. Radiographic analysis yielded no evidence of capitellar wear or stem loosening.
conclusionA radial head prosthesis can produce satisfactory results when used for revision of a failed prosthesis. Inherent difficulties in revision surgery include the potential for reduced bone stock and a disrupted soft tissue envelope. Elements of prosthesis design which may contribute to effectively managing revision surgery include a long stem with in-growth surface and prosthetic head alignment to the axis of forearm rotation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.