Kyriacou Steven, Gupta Yash, Bains Harraj Kaur, Singh Harvinder Pal
Clinical Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Apr;139(4):507-517. doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03111-z. Epub 2019 Jan 17.
The terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) remains challenging to manage and has been associated with high complication rates and poor outcomes. There is a trend towards performing radial head replacement (REP) in preference to radial head reconstruction (REC) as arthroplasty provides early stability and may allow mobilisation sooner, potentially resulting in a better functional outcome. This systematic review compares the outcome of patients with TTIE treated with either REC or REP.
MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for studies published in English involving at least ten patients exclusively with a TTIE managed operatively, including both patients with either REC or REP. Data collection was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis protocol. The outcomes of interest were Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and range of motion (ROM). Post-operative complications were also compared.
9 studies involving 210 patients were included (98 REPs and 112 RECs). There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.51) demonstrated between in the mean MEPS of the REP group (mean 88.6) and REC group (mean 88.5). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference demonstrated between the REP and REC groups in terms of ROM. The risk of re-operation was high in both the REP (18.4%) and REC (17.9%) group. The overall complication rate of all patients included in the study was high (65%).
Comparable results with good outcomes in terms of functional scores and ROM can be achieved with both REP and REC when treating TTIE, although the re-operation rate for both remains relatively high. Given there is no apparent clear advantage between the two treatment groups, we would suggest that REC should be performed when a satisfactory fixation can be achieved as the longevity of REP in young patients with a TTIE is currently uncertain.
肘关节恐怖三联征损伤(TTIE)的治疗仍然具有挑战性,且与高并发症发生率和不良预后相关。与桡骨头重建(REC)相比,目前存在一种倾向于进行桡骨头置换(REP)的趋势,因为关节成形术可提供早期稳定性,并可能使患者更早活动,从而有可能带来更好的功能结局。本系统评价比较了接受REC或REP治疗的TTIE患者的结局。
检索MEDLINE、Embase和CINAHL数据库,查找以英文发表的研究,这些研究纳入至少10例仅接受手术治疗的TTIE患者,包括接受REC或REP治疗的患者。数据收集遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目协议。感兴趣的结局指标为梅奥肘关节功能评分(MEPS)和活动范围(ROM)。同时比较术后并发症。
纳入9项研究,共210例患者(98例接受REP,112例接受REC)。REP组的平均MEPS为88.6,REC组为88.5,两组之间未显示出统计学显著差异(p = 0.51)。同样,REP组和REC组在ROM方面也未显示出统计学显著差异。REP组(18.4%)和REC组(17.9%)再次手术的风险都很高。纳入研究的所有患者的总体并发症发生率较高(65%)。
治疗TTIE时,REP和REC在功能评分和ROM方面均可取得相当的良好结果,尽管两者的再次手术率仍然相对较高。鉴于两个治疗组之间没有明显的明显优势,我们建议在能够实现满意固定时应进行REC,因为目前TTIE年轻患者中REP的使用寿命尚不确定。