# Radial Head Resection versus Arthroplasty in Unrepairable Comminuted Fractures Mason Type III and Type IV: A Systematic Review

Authors: Francesco Catellani; Francesca De Caro; Carlo F. De Biase; Vincenzo R. Perrino; Luca Usai; Vito Triolo; Giovanni Ziveri; Gennaro Fiorentino
Journal: BioMed Research International
 (2018)

---

## Abstract

Unrepairable comminuted fractures of the radial head Mason type III or type IV have poor outcomes when treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Radial head resection has been proposed as good option for surgical treatment, while in the last decades, the development of technology and design in radial head prosthesis has increased efficacy in prosthetic replacement. The present review was conducted to determine the best surgical treatment for comminuted radial head when ORIF is not possible. Better outcomes are reported for radial head arthroplasty in terms of elbow stability, range of motion, pain, and fewer complications compared to radial head excision. Nevertheless, radial head resection still can be considered an option of treatment in isolated radial head fractures with no associated ligament injuries lesion of ligaments or in case of older patients with low demanding function.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Surgical treatment for comminuted and unrepairable fractures of the radial head may be challenging. These types of fractures are often associated with multiple ligamentous injuries amounting to elbow instability. Radial head resection has been proposed as good option for surgical treatment, while in the last decades, the development of technology and design in radial head prosthesis has increased efficacy in prosthetic replacement.The radial head is a secondary valgus stabilizer of the joint and it is involved in transmission of axial force load through the elbow during flexion [1]. It is also a varus and external rotatory constrainer [2]. Comminuted radial head fractures Mason type III and type IV are commonly associated with other injures of the elbow as capitellum and coronoid fractures and/or ligaments disruption, both medial and lateral ligaments and interosseus membrane [3–6]. Primary goal in surgical treatment is to restore elbow stability in order to preserve the complex physiologic elbow kinematics. In this respect, medial collateral ligament is the primary constrainer in valgus stress. Radial head contributes secondarily to valgus stability [1, 7] and its preservation is mandatory in case of fractures that involve soft tissue and ligaments to avoid chronic instability. Many authors have described serious complications in case of resection of the radial head such as proximal migration of radius and longitudinal instability, humeroulnar osteoarthritis [2, 7–9], decrease in grip strength, cubitus valgus, and ulnar neuropathy [10, 11]. Therefore, radial head arthroplasty has obtained a large consensus in orthopaedic surgeons as primary option of treatment in fractures Mason types III and IV. It allows an anatomical reconstruction and it maintains stability and physiologic kinematics of the elbow if associated with ligament reconstruction. However, oversizing or overstuffing of radial head prosthesis, malpositioning, and aseptic mobilization may lead to a high rate of complications and failure of this surgical procedure. Recent reviews of literature [10, 12] on elbow arthroplasties have reported satisfactory results in radial head replacement studies due to improvement of biomaterials and operative techniques.The purpose of this review was to investigate the current literature on surgical treatment of unrepairable comminuted radial head fractures Mason type III or type IV to assess results and indications for radial head replacement or resection.


## 2. Materials and Methods

We searched in PubMed electronic database the words (radial head fractures) AND ((artrhoplasty) OR (prosthesis)) AND ((resection) OR (excision)). The guidelines for preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) were used (Figure1). We selected articles of the last 20 years, from 1998 to December 2017. We created an Excel database for collecting data extracted from articles in English language, selecting papers with series of 10 or more patients. Exclusion criteria were articles written in other languages, case reports or reviews, cadaveric or instrumentals studies, clinical studies with no standard questionnaires or scores, and studies in which posttraumatic outcomes were not separated from primary reconstruction of the radial head.Figure 1We extracted relevant data from the selected articles: type of study, number of patients, age, follow-up, type of surgery performed, clinical results (ROM, DASH score, MEPS score, and VAS), and radiographic results.


## 3. Results

The database search identified 152 potentially relevant articles. Abstracts have been analyzed following inclusion and exclusion criteria and a total of 29 papers were selected for the present review. Most of retrospective studies on metal radial head prosthesis have been published in the last ten years in comparison to a lack of studies for radial head excision in the last two decades. Moreover, few articles on comparison of the two surgical techniques have been found. Because of heterogeneity in level of evidence, surgical technique, type of implants, and rehabilitation protocol, we did not perform statistical data analysis. Articles selected are reported in Table1.Table 1
Studies selected. Number and age of patients, type of treatment, and follow-up.
Author Type of study andyear of publication N. of patients Age Type of treatment Follow up Carità E Retrospective 2017 28(Mason type III – IV) 49 yo(18-71) Cementless monopolar prostheses(Acumed – Tornier) 49 months(6-118)  Laflamme M Retrospective 2017 46 (21 Mason III; 36 Mason IV) Porous stem: 52.8 yoSmooth stem: 45.6 Modular monopolar head – uncemented loose fitting stem (Evolve, Wright)Modular monopolar head - porous press-fit stem (ExploR, Biomet) 6,3 years(1,2-15,1)  Tarallo L Retrospective 2017 31 Mason III - 31Radial head replacement (Anatomic RHA, Acumed) 30 months (12 months to 7 years)  Nestorson J Restrospective 2017 32 Mason IV 50 yo (29-70) 18 pts radial head arthroplasty14 radial head resection 58 months (RHA)108 months (RH resection)  Laumonerie P Retrospective 2017 77(65 Mason type III, 2 Mason type II; 10 radial neck fractures) 52 yo(20-82) Guepar radial head prosthesis (SBi/Stryker)Evolutive (Aston Medical)rHead Recon (SBi/Stryker)rHead STANDARD (SBi/Stryker) 74 months(24 to 141)  Lopiz Retrospective 2016 25 Mason III Excixion53 yoArthroplasty54.4yo 11 patients radial head resection14 Radial head prosthesis Excision60.3 monthsArthroplasty42 months  Van Hoecke Retrospective 2016 21 Mason III 53,2 yo Judet bipolar head prosthesis 113 months  Heijink Retrospective 2016 25 Mason type III 55 yo Cemented bipolar radial head artrhoplasty (Tornier) 50 months  Kodde Retrospective 2016 27 48 yrs(24-63) Press fit bipolar radial head arthroplasty 48 months (28-73)  Marsh JP Retrospective 2016 55 61 yrs Modular smooth-stemmed radial head implant (Evolve, Wright) 8.2 yrs  Gauci MO Retrospective 2016 65(10 ORIF revision42 Mason III12 post traumatic radiohumareal sequelae,1 swanson prosthesis revision) 52 yrs(22-85) Modular Pyrocarbon (MoPyc) radial head prosthesis (Tornier) 42 months (24-108)  Solarino G. Retrospective 2015 30(12 Mason II;18 Mason III) 71 yo (65-80) Radial head resection 40 months (24-72)  Allavena C Retrospective 2014 22(16 fractures Mason type III;6 fractures of the radial neck) 44 yrs(22-65) Modular bipolar radial head prostehesis (Guepar,De Puy) 50 months  Yalcinkaya M Retrospective 2013 14 fractures Mason type III 38 yrs(20-67) Radial head resection 14,7 yrs(9-26)  Flinkkila T. Retrospective 2012 42(34 Mason type III;8 type II) 56 yrs(23-85) Metallic radial head artrhoplasty 50 months (12-107)  Sarris IK Retrospective 2012 5 Mason type III; 15 type IV;10 complex elbow injuries;2 malunion 54 yrs (32-68) MoPyc pyrocarbon prosthesis (Bioprofile, Tornier) 27 months (21-46)  Ricon F Retrospective 2012 28 Mason III 54 yrs Pyrocarbon radial head prosthesis(Bioprofile Lab.) 32 months (12-62)  Muhm M Retrospective 2011 25 radial head fractures type III and type IV - Uncemented modular metallic prosthesis(Evolve) Short term 1,6yrsMid term5,1 yrs  Iftimie Retrospective 2011 22(16 Mason type III; 6 type IV) 54 yrs(28-81) Resection head arthroplasty 16,9 yrs (10-24)  Celli A Retrospective 2010 16 patients(9Mason type III7 Mason type IV) 46.1 yrs(27-74) Bipolar Judet radial head arthroplasty (Tornier) 41,7 months (12,3 – 86,3)  Antuna SA Retrospective 2010 26 patients(6 type III20 type IV) 29 yrs(15-39) Radial Head Resection 24,9 yrs (15-34)  Dotzis A Retrospective 2006 14 patients(6 Mason type III; 8 type IV) 44.8 years(18 – 85) Judet prosthesis (Tornier) 5.3 years (1-12 yrs)  Ashwood N Retrospective 2004 16 Mason type III 45 yrs(21- 72) Metallic monoblock radial head prosthesis(Wright Med Tec.) 2.8 years(1.2-4.3)  Herbertsson P. Retrospective 2004 61 patients39 Mason type II 10 Mason III 12 Mason IV 44 yrs(9-69) Radial head resectionPrimary RHE=39Delayed RHE=18 18 years(11-33)  Moro JK Retrospective 2001 25(10 Mason type III;15 Mason type IV) 54 yrs Metal Radial head arthroplasty 39 months  Sanchez Sotelo J. Retrospective 2000 10 Mason type III 39 yrs(26-57) Radial head resection 4.62 years (24-86 months)  Ikeda M Retrospective 2000 11 Mason type III 40 yrs (25-70) Radial head resection 11 years (3-18)  Smets A Retrospective 2000 13 Mason type III - Floating radial head prosthesis 25.2 months  Jansen RP Retrospective 1998 18 Mason III - Radial head resection 16 to 30 years


## 4. Discussion

From our review of literature clinical results for radial head replacement are reported in Table2. Most of retrospective studies involve modular monopolar or bipolar prosthesis implanted for irreparable Mason type III or type IV fractures. For most of authors, mid term follow-up has shown satisfactory results in range of motion recovery (average flexion-extension arc of motion: 116°). Good results in DASH scores (from 7 to 24) and MEPS scores (from 79 to 100) and low VAS pain evaluation scale (from 0 to 2.2) are reported [13–32]. A certain loss of grip strength compared to contralateral side is often described (average loss of strength: 10% respect to the contralateral side). Authors highlight the importance of ligament reconstruction in case of associated injuries. Intraoperative assessment of stability and acute repair of torn ligaments is mandatory for a successful procedure.Table 2
Mean clinical results for radial head arthroplasty.
Author Type of prosthesis ROM VAS DASH Meps/Mepi Other clinical evaluations Carità E Cementless monopolar prostheses(Acumed – Tornier) Flexion- extension arc107°  pronosupination159° 1.8 14,2 Meps 89 Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE) = 29  Laflamme Modular monopolar head – uncemented loose fitting stem (Evolve, Wright)Modular monopolar head - porous press-fit stem (ExploR, Biomet) Mean elbow flexion difference compared with the normal side: 4°;extension 14pronation 8°  supination 15° 1.11 7.7 Mepi 96.5 Grip strength compared with the normal side (Jamar dynamometer kg/force): 1.0 (-24-13)  Tarallo Anatomic RHA, Acumed) Flexion-extension arc112° (95°-112°  Pronosupination 134° - - Meps:24 excellent (77%)3 good (10%)4 fair (13%) -  Laumonerie Guepar radial head prosthesis (SBi/Stryker)Evolutive (Aston Medical)rHead Recon (SBi/Stryker)rHead STANDARD (SBi/Stryker) Acute treatment   Flexion 132°   Extension -12.9°   Supination 67.8°   Pronation 76° - 13.1 Meps 91.5 Force compared to contralateral side:flexion 87.2extension 93.6  Nestorson Radial head arthoplasty Flexion-extension arc130° (95°-155°)Forearm rotation 30° (10°-85°) - 13 Meps: 85 -  Lopiz Radial head arthoplasty Flexion-extension arc85.5° - 24.8 Meps:6 Excellent3 good 2 fair2 poor -  Van Hoecke Judet bipolar head prosthesis Flexion 121.8°Extension 24,8°  Pronation: 62.4°  Supination 58.8° - 23.1 Mepi 88,6 -  Heijink Cemented bipolar radial head artrhoplasty (Tornier) Flexion-extension arc129°   Forearm rotation 131° Pain:13 absent7 mild3 moderate1 severe - Meps13 Excellent7 good 3 fair1 poor -  Kodde Press fit bipolar radial head arthroplasty(Tornier) Flexion-extension arc126°   Forearm rotation 138° Pain:17 absent3 mild7 moderate - Meps17 Excellent2 good 7 fair1 poor -  Marsh Modular smooth-stemmed radial head implant (Evolve, Wright) Flexion-extension arc126°+/- 21°  Pronation 79°  Supination 67° - 14 Mepi91+/- 13 points Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE): 14Mean grip strength: 97% of that of the unaffected limb  Gauci ModularPyrocarbon(MoPyc) radial head prosthesis(Tornier) Flexion 136°Extension -9°  Pronation 71°  Supination 76° 1  Meps 96 -  Allavena Modular bipolar radial head prostehesis(De Puy) Flexion-extension arc100°  Rotation arc 143° - 21 Meps 79 Mean wrist strength 86% compared to contralateral sideMean elbow strength 67% compared to contralateral side  Flinkkila T. Metallic radial head artrhoplasty Flexion-extension arc117°  extension deficit 20° - 23 Meps 86 -  Sarris IK MoPyc pyrocarbon prosthesis(Bioprofile, Tornier) Flexion-extension arc130°  Pronation 74°  Supination 72° - - Mepsexcellent 80%good 17%fair 3% Mean grip strength 96% compared to contralateral side  Ricon F Pyrocarbon radial head prosthesis(Bioprofile Lab.) Flexion-extension arc105°  Pronation 85°  Supination 80° - - 92 Mean grip strength reduced of 10% on the injured side  Muhm M Uncemented modular metallic prosthesis(Evolve) mid-term (15 patients)   flexion 127.3 extension 15.7 pronation 74.3 supination 71.7 - 24,9 - Broberg and Morrey scoring system 85,2  Celli A Bipolar Judet radial head arthroplasty (Tornier) Flexion-extension arc117°   Pronosupination 120° 1.38 at rest2.25 at work 11.4 Meps 89.4 -  Dotzis A Judet prosthesis (Tornier) Flexion-extension arc14°-140°   pronation 87.5°   supination 84° - 23.9 Excellent 6Good 4Fair 1Poor 1 Mean grip strength 90% compared to contralateral side  Ashwood N Metallic monoblock radial head prosthesis(Wright) Loss of flexion 10°Loss of pronation 12°  Loss of supination 12° 17(0-100 vas scale) - 87 Mean grip strength reduced of 12% on the injured side  Moro JK Metal Radial head arthroplasty Flexion 140°Extension -8°  Pronation 78°  Supination 68° - 17 Mepi 80Excellent, good 17Poor 3Fair 5 SF-36 score: physical component 47; mental component 49Mean PRWE score: 17Mean WOS score: 60  Smets A Floating radial head prosthesis  - - MepiExcellent 7Good 3Fair 1Poor 2 -Most common radiological modifications include osteoarthritic changes of ulnohumeral joint, capitellum wear for oversizing of radial head prosthesis, periarticular heterotopic ossifications, and radiolucency lines around the stem. Some modifications in radiographic appearance seem to not correlate directly with clinical symptoms: bone resorption around the prosthesis does not correlate with loosening of the prosthesis and does not affect clinical scores. Marsh [21] reports favorable clinical outcomes from short to long follow-up despite a high evidence of radiolucency around the stem and arthritis in his series. Gauci [20] has found no association between neck bone resorption and postoperative symptoms.Complications (Table3) described in radial head replacement are in common in almost all the papers: aseptic mobilization of the stem, overstuffing, erosion of the capitellum, osteoarthritis, and heterotopic ossification clinically arising with lateral elbow pain or loss of motion, and posterior subluxation for undersizing. Rare temporary ulnar and radial nerve sensory neuropathies are reported. Though, few papers seem to discourage radial head arthroplasty. Moro [31] reports mild to moderate impairment of ROM and pain for both elbow and wrist in patients treated with a metal radial head implant. Laumonerie [16] describes unsatisfactory result from bipolar radial head prosthesis because of malposition in varus and valgus and oversizing leading to a high rate of reintervention during the three first months after implantation. Flinkkila [23] reports poor results from press fit radial head prosthesis due to a high rate of loosening. Difficulties on technique of implantation are described by Ashwood [30] for mono-block prosthesis.Table 3
Complications in radial head replacement.
Author N. of patients Complications Carità E 28 1 osteolysis and stem mobilization1 overstuffing (erosion of the capitellum)2 periprosthetic calcification(asymptomatic)6 resorption of the neck of the radius (asymptomatic)3 removal of the implant (1 mobilization; 3 painful elbow)  Laflamme M 46 22 osteolysis >2mm (48%)4 Overstuffing1 degenerative changes (Broberg and Morrey grade III)5 heterotopic ossification Brooker grade II, 1 grade IV  Tarallo L 31 8 heterotopic ossification (26%)2 radiolucent lines (asymptomatic)  Nestorson J 18 4 surgical revision (3 aseptic loosening, 1 proximal radio-ulnar synostosis, 1 CPRS)5 late osteoarthritis  Laumonerie P 54acute injuries23delayed surgery 8 painful loosening4 radiohumeral conflict3 radiocapitellar instability5 ulnar nerve palsy4 CPRS30 reoperations (38.9%)(19 implants removed; 11 retention of the implant)  Lopiz 14 3 elbow stiffness2 oversizing1 periprosthetic fracture2 neuropathies (ulnar and radial)4 elbow arthritis grade I, 9 cases grade II, 1 case grade III (Broberg and Morrey classification)11 periarticular ossification (asymptomatic)5 bone lucencies (asymptomatic)  Van Hoecke 21 14 capitellar erosion10 ulnohumeral arthritis1 radiolucent lines1 overlenghtening1 ulnar plus1 prosthesis removed  Heijink 25 3 radiolucency lines (asymptomatic)5 periarticular ossification (asymptomatic)7 osteolysis of proximal radius (asymptomatic)4 erosion of the capitellum13 ulnohumeral arthritis2 radial nerve neuropraxia1 luxation (dissociation of the prostheses) – removed2 subluxation  Kodde IF 27 3 revisions for chronic instability5 revision for ulnar nerve dysfunction, elbow stiffness, symptomatic arthritis23 radial neck osteolysis 13 ulnohumeral degeneration7 erosion of the capitellum5 heterotopic ossification (asymptomatic)1 posterior subluxation 2 persistent pain for medial and lateral epicondylitis  Marsh JP 55 25 periprosthetic lucency21 ulnohumeral arthritis20 heterotopic ossification12 capitellar osteopenia1 abnormal radiocapitellar alignment  Gauci MO 65 48 (92%) cortical resorption around prosthesis neck9 capitellum wear1 radio-ulnar synostosis  Allavena C 22 6 early posterior subluxation5 sensory ulnar nerve dysfunction2 CPRS type I3 lateral elbow pain1 symptomatic loosening8 osteolysis1 advanced osteoarthritis6 capitellar erosions4 anterior ossifications  Flinkkila T. 42 1 infection1 radial nerve palsy21 osteoarthritis (3 severe)14 capitellar erosion9 prostheses removed (6 painful, 2 loosed)  Sarris IK 32 2 stem-neck dissociation1 stiffness2 periprosthetic lucencies (asymptomatic)7 heterotopic ossification (asymptomatic)4 radiographic sign of stress shielding (asymptomatic)  Ricon F 28 2 posterior subluxation (overstuffing)11 radial neck resorption5 ossification in collateral ligament1 mild periprosthetic ossification  Muhm M Mid term   15 12 periprosthetic radiolucency12 (70%) heterotopic ossification12 (70%) osteoarthritis  Iftimie 22 24 degenerative changes  Celli A 16 2 heterotopic ossification2 proximal radio-ulnar synostosis2 capitellar erosion (overstuffing)1 proximal bone resorption  Dotzis A 14 1 CPRS and stiffness1 periprosthetic lucency7 heterotopic ossification (asymptomatic)  Ashwood N 16 1 CPRS3 ulnar neuropathies2 superficial wound infections  Moro JK 25 17 bone radiolucency (asymptomatic)1 CPRS1 ulnar neuropathy1 PIN palsy1 elbow stiffness1 wound infection  Smets A 13 3 wrist pain1 implant removed for stiffnessRetrospective studies on radial head resection have a longer follow-up and clinical and radiological results are reported in Table4 [33–42]. Clinical and radiological complications at long-term follow-up are reported (Table 5). Clinical results show good outcomes in Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS, from 79 to 100) and Disabilities for Arm Shoulder and Harm scores (DASH, from 4 to 15), a satisfactory recovery of elbow range of motion (average flexion-extension arc of motion: 120°) and low scores in VAS scale (from 0 to 4.6). However common complications of this surgical procedure involve ulnohumeral joint due to an higher load compression force that leads to degenerative changes and progressive worsening of cubitus valgus associated to ulnar nerve neuropathy and UCL elongation leading to chronic elbow instability [3, 4]. Moreover, proximal migration of radius is often assessed (80% of papers), complications that involve DRUJ impairment leading to wrist pain hand strength reduction and distal radio-ulnar arthritis. Preoperative or intraoperative setting of elbow stability and correction of ligaments injuries is mandatory to avoid early complications. Despite of complications, many authors approve the surgical technique due to good outcomes in mid to large term. Yalcinkaya [36] found no significant correlation between radiological degenerative modifications in elbow and outcomes of clinical scores in patients treated by radial head resection. Antuna [38] reports good clinical results in a large series of patients less than forty years old treated by radial head excision after a mean follow-up of 25 years. Herbertsson [39] reports worst outcomes in excision for Mason type IV fractures although delayed radial arthroplasty is suggested for pain relief and preservation of range of motion in case of failure of other treatments.Table 4
Mean clinical results for radial head resection.
Author ROM VAS DASH Meps/Mepi Other clinical evaluations Nestorson J Flexion-extension arc127,5° (105°-150°) - 12 Meps: 100 -  Lopiz Flexion-extension arc105.2° - 13.5 Meps6 excellent3 good2 fair0 poor -  Solarino G. flexion 124°extension -11°   pronation 78°   supination 82° Pain Absent 14Mild 8Moderate 8 13 Meps 79 -  Yalcinkaya M Flexion-extension arc127°   Pronation 83,2°   Supination 84,6° 4,6 6,6 Meps 88,6 -  Iftimie flexion 135°extension -5°   pronation 83°   supination 79° 0.48 4,89 - Grip strength 88% compared to the contralateral side  Antuna SA flexion 84°extension -9°   pronation 84°   supination 85° 9 6 95 Grip strength loss 16% compared to contralateral side  Herbertsson P. Primary RHA   flexion 140°   extension -7°   supination 77°   pronation 85° - - - Steinberg system for clinical outcomes: 25 good; 26 fair; 10 poor28 no symptoms, 27 occasional pain; 6 daily pain  Sanchez Sotelo J. Flexion-extension 7.5- 140Pronation 85.5°   Supination 83.5° 0 0.66 to 15.9 - Grip strength loss 15% compared to contralateral sideBroberg and Morrey performance index:excellent 5; good 5; poor 1  Ikeda M flexion 132°extension -14°   supination 82°   pronation 80° - - - Grip strength loss 17% compared to contralateral side  Jansen RP - - - MepiExcellent 17Good 3Fair 1Poor 2 -Table 5
Complications in radial head resection.
Author N. Of patients Complications Nestorson J 14 2 surgical revision (stiffness)1 ulnar nerve dysfunction1 radial nerve dysfunction13 late osteoarthritis  Lopiz 11 Average radial shortening 2.3mm1 elbow stiffness1 valgus instabilityAll patients: elbow arthritis grade I2 heterotopic ossification (asymptomatic)  Solarino G. 30 Arthritic changes: 4 mild; 3 moderate5 heterotopic ossification5 ulnar minus (mean value 3.5) and DRUJ instability  Yalcinkaya M 14 8 degenerative changes in elbow4 degenerative changes in wrist3 heterotopic ossification8 proximal migration of radiusMean ulnar variance: 1.7mmMean carrying angle 11.2°  Iftimie 22 24 Degenerative changes (Broberg and Morrey 1 patient grade 3; 13 grade 2; 10 grade 1  Antuna SA 26 2 postero-lateral instability2 valgus laxity1 DRUJ instabilityOsteoarthritic changes (17 mild; 9 moderate)8 heterotopic ossification (asymptomatic)Average radial shortening 3.1mm  Herbertsson P. 61 16 ulnar plus >2 mmDegenerative changes: 42 cysts; 40 irregular subchondral bone; 43 osteophytes  Sanchez Sotelo J. 10 4 heterotopic ossification8 degenerative arthritismean proximal radius migration: 1.6mmmean carrying angle decrease: 5.4°  Ikeda M 11 Mean ulnar variance +1.6mmMean increase in carrying angle 8°   Mild to severe degenerative arthritis in all patients  Jansen RP 18 ROM limitations11 Degenerative changes 7 increase of cubitus valgus, 7 periarticular ossification, 7 osteoporosis of capitellum,12 proximal radius migration (from 1 to 5 mm)Finally, few papers compare radial head resection and radial head arthroplasty [34, 35] where authors recommend resection as primary option of treatment because of a lack of statistical clinical differences between the two surgical procedures, in case of isolated radial head fractures not associated to ligaments injuries. Nestorson [33] did not found better outcomes by using a press fit radial head prosthesis in Mason type IV fractures and he reports similar functional results after radial head resection despite more osteoarthritic changes. Lopiz [34] suggests resection as a good option of treatment when ORIF is not possible, reporting a higher rate of complications in the group of patient treated by radial head arthroplasty.


## 5. Conclusion

From our review of literature almost all the retrospective studies on radial head arthroplasty report convincing results in terms of elbow stability, range of motion, and pain. Nevertheless, papers on radial head resection report good clinical outcomes in isolated radial head resection with no associated ligament injuries. Few papers compare the two techniques with no substantial differences in terms of clinical outcomes at medium and long follow-up.



---

*Source: 4020625-2018-07-16.xml*