ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Periprosthetic Ulna Fractures Following Aptis Distal Radioulnar Joint Arthroplasty: A Series of Four Cases.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This case series presents four cases of periprosthetic ulna fractures following Aptis distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) arthroplasty to elucidate clinical characteristics, contributing factors, management challenges, and short-term outcomes following this rare complication and to propose prevention and optimal treatment strategies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 239 Aptis DRUJ prostheses implanted between 2012 and 2022 at a single institution. We identified four cases of periprosthetic ulna fractures and assessed demographics, surgical indications, time to fracture, mechanism of injury, radiographic findings, treatment modalities, associated complications, and outcomes. Results: The incidence of periprosthetic ulna fractures was 1.7%. All patients had prior surgery on the same extremity. Fractures occurred within 11 months of DRUJ arthroplasty, with varied mechanisms of injury, including one after a fall, another with heavy lifting, and the remaining two unprovoked. Postoperative radiographs revealed eccentric stem position and endosteal impingement in all cases. According to the Unified Classification System for periprosthetic fractures, three were classified as B1 type, and one was B2 type at diagnosis. Open reduction and internal fixation reliably achieved union at an average of 7 months with acceptable function. Conclusion: Intraoperative technical pitfalls may contribute to periprosthetic ulna fractures during the early postoperative period. Consideration should also be given to anatomical variations and ulna shaft morphometry. Nonsurgical treatment yielded unsatisfactory results, whereas fractures without gross stem loosening treated with open reduction and internal fixation and autologous bone grafting resulted in reliable fracture union, suggesting a limited role for conservative treatment. Based on principles of periprosthetic fracture treatment in other locations, fractures with gross stem loosening may be best managed with implant exchange, with or without supplemental open reduction and internal fixation; however, more evidence is needed to guide the treatment of this rare complication of DRUJ arthroplasty. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.
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.