Materials and Methods: We searched the databases of our institutions for the surgical procedures diagnosed as "fracture of the radial head" and for the procedures related to "prosthesis of the radial head" and "osteosynthesis of the radial head" in the period from May 2014 to October 2017. The fractures were first classified according to the Mason classification . We then allocated the patients into three study groups according to the site of the fracture, either the medial or lateral side of the radial head : Group A, with an isolated lateral fracture of the radius head; Group B1, with a medial fracture of the radius head with two medial fragments; and Group B2, with a medial fracture of the radius head with multiple medial fragments. We performed a multivariate analysis to identify statistically significant correlation between the pre-operative classifications of Mason and our study, the type of surgical procedure, and the clinical outcome.
Results: Mayo Elbow Performance (MEP) scores determined at the final follow-up of the study (mean 16.6 months, range 12-26 months) was excellent in 17 patients (4 in Group A, 6 in Group B1 and 7 in Group B2), and good in 12 patients (3 in Group A, 7 in Group B1, and 2 in Group B2). One patient showed a poor result in MEP score probably because of an infection and implant removal.
Conclusion: Regarding medial fractures of the radial head, our study showed satisfactory results with a radial head prosthesis for comminuted or multifragmentary radial head fractures. For surgeons with advanced elbow fracture expertise, osteosynthesis could be attempted in a fracture pattern that involved only two medial fragments.
Material and methods: The extracortical bone bridge interface's radiological parameter was evaluated at the prosthesis bone junction two years after surgery utilising a picture archiving and communication system (PACS). The radiograph's anteroposterior and lateral view was analysed for both thickness and length in all four cortices. The analysis was done in SPSS Version 24 using One-Way ANOVA and independent T-Test. Results were presented as mean and standard deviation and considered significant when the p-value was < 0.05.
Results: The mean average thickness was 2.2293mm (SD 1.829), and the mean average length was 31.95% (SD 24.55). We observed that the thickness and length of EBBI were superior in the young patient or patients with giant cell tumour that did not receive chemotherapy, compared to patients treated for osteosarcoma. The distal femur also had better EBBI compared to the proximal tibia. However, the final multivariable statistical analysis showed no significant difference in all variables. EBBI thickness was significantly and positively correlated with EBBI Length (p<0.001). We conclude that, for each 1mm increase in EBBI thickness, the length will increase by 0.06% on average. About 17.2% of patients out of the 29 showed no radiological evidence of EBBI.
Conclusion: From our study, there were no factors that significantly contributed to the formation and incorporation of EBBI.