Only 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.
Biodegradable implants versus standard metal fixation for displaced radial head fractures. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study.
This multicenter, prospective, randomized study compares the use of biodegradable polylactide pins with standard metal mini-fragment implants for the treatment of displaced radial head fractures. It compares complication rates and clinical outcomes of both treatment methods. At 2 years, 135 (82%) of 164 patients were available for evaluation. Equivalence of treatment method was defined as a difference of 10% or less in the number of complication-free patients. Functional status was assessed by using the Broberg and Morrey Elbow Score and compared by an unpaired t test. Good or excellent clinical results were achieved by 92% (56/61) of the control patients and 96% (71/74) of the polylactide patients. The incidence of complication-free patients was 3.7% less in the polylactide group than in the control group. The 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference between the 2 groups was more than -6.1%. Biodegradable polylactide pins have at least comparable outcomes as standard metal implants for the internal fixation of reconstructable displaced radial head fractures.