• Yu Gao, Wei Zhang, Xin Duan, Jing Yang, Mohammed Al-Qwbani, Jingtong Lv, and Zhou Xiang.
• Department of Orthopedics, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 1;5:CD008987.

BackgroundRadial head fractures are the most common type of elbow fracture and can severely affect the function of the elbow. There is uncertainty and controversy about when surgery is indicated as well as what type of surgical intervention is best.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of surgical interventions for treating radial head fractures in adults. We aimed to compare surgical versus non-surgical treatment, and different methods of surgical intervention.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library; 2012 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 19) and trial registers (November 2011). No language restrictions were applied.Selection CriteriaAll randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for treating radial head fractures.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, results were pooled.Main ResultsWe included three randomised controlled trials, involving a total of 251 participants. All three trials were at high risk of performance bias reflecting the fact that surgeons could not be blinded. One trial was at low risk of selection bias but was undermined by a high attrition bias, in part resulting from post-randomisation exclusions. There were incomplete details of methodology for the other two trials, which usually resulted in unclear risk of bias judgements.Two trials compared radial head replacement with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for treating Mason type III radial head fractures. The trial authors reported outcomes at a mean of 2.8 years and 15 months respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups in favour of radial head replacement in the Broberg and Morrey elbow scores (92.1 versus 72.4, mean difference (MD) 19.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.64 to 23.76; one trial, 45 participants), excellent or good Broberg and Morrey elbow scores (33/36 versus 16/31, risk ratio (RR) 1.88; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.77; two trials), and overall adverse events (6/36 versus 15/31, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; two trials). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in any of the reported individual adverse events.One trial compared biodegradable pins with standard metal screws in treating radial head fractures of AO-classification 21 B2. The two types of fixation devices yielded similar results, with no significant between-group differences in the Broberg and Morrey scores (93.3 versus 90.9, MD 2.40; 95% CI -0.10 to 4.90), excellent or good Broberg and Morrey elbow scores (72/74 versus 56/61, RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15), and adverse events (13/82 versus 16/82, RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58) at two-year follow-up.Authors' ConclusionsOnly tentative conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence in this review. Compared with ORIF, there was some evidence that radial head replacement had better elbow function and fewer adverse events for Mason type III radial head fractures in the short term. However, the evidence is of low quality and it is unknown whether these results would apply in the longer term or more generally. Using biodegradable implants may be as good as metallic implants for fixation of some usually more stable fractures but more evidence is needed to confirm this. There is a need for good quality evidence for addressing the areas of uncertainty for the surgical treatment of radial head fractures.

9 keywords...

hide…