Greater radial tuberosity size is associated with distal biceps tendon rupture: a quantitative 3-D CT case-control study.

PURPOSE: During pronation, the distal biceps tendon and radial tuberosity internally rotate into the radioulnar space, reducing the linear distance between the radius and ulna by approximately 50%. This leaves a small space for the distal biceps tendon to move in and could possibly cause mechanical impingement or rubbing of the distal biceps tendon. Hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity potentially increases the risk of mechanical impingement of the distal biceps tendon. The purpose of our study was to determine if radial tuberosity size is associated with rupturing of the distal biceps tendon. METHODS: Nine patients with a distal biceps tendon rupture who underwent CT were matched 1:2 to controls without distal biceps pathology. A quantitative 3-dimensional CT technique was used to calculate the following radial tuberosity characteristics: 1) volume in mm3, 2) surface area in mm2, 3) maximum height in mm and 4) location (distance in mm from the articular surface of the radial head). RESULTS: Analysis of the 3-dimensional radial tuberosity CT-models showed larger radial tuberosity volume and maximum height in the distal biceps tendon rupture group compared to the control group. Mean radial tuberosity volume in the rupture-group was 705 mm3 (SD: 222 mm3) compared to 541 mm3 (SD: 184 mm3) in the control group (p = 0.033). Mean radial tuberosity maximum height in the rupture-group was 4.6 mm (SD: 0.9 mm) compared to 3.7 mm (SD: 1.1 mm) in the control group, respectively (p = 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference in radial tuberosity surface area (ns) and radial tuberosity location (ns). CONCLUSION: Radial tuberosity volume and maximum height were significantly greater in patients with distal biceps tendon ruptures compared to matched controls without distal biceps tendon pathology. This supports the theory that hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity plays a role in developing distal biceps tendon pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Operative vs. nonoperative treatment for Mason type 2 radial head fractures: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of isolated displaced partial articular radial head fractures remains controversial. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the functional outcome of operative treatment with nonoperative treatment in adults with an isolated Mason type 2 radial head fractures. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients from 18 years of age with an isolated partial articular fracture of the radial head were randomly assigned to operative treatment by means of open reduction and screw fixation or nonoperative treatment with a pressure bandage. The primary outcome was function assessed with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Questionnaires and clinical follow-up was conducted at admission and at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 45 patients were randomized, 23 patients to open reduction and screw fixation and 22 patients to nonoperative treatment with a pressure bandage. At 3, 6, and 12 months, patients treated operatively had similar functional outcomes compared to patients treated nonoperatively (DASH score at 12 months: 0.0 [0.0-4.2] vs. 1.7 [0.0-8.5]; P = .076). CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperatively treated adults with an isolated Mason type 2 radial head fracture have similar functional results after 1 year compared with operatively treated patients. In addition, complication rates were low for both operative and nonoperative treatment.

Management of the failed radial head arthroplasty.

Primary radial head arthroplasty (RHA) produces good or excellent results in approximately 85% of patients. However, complications are not uncommon and have been described in up to 23% of cases.The number of RHA is increasing, and consequently the absolute number of complications is expected to rise as well. The decision on whether to revise or remove the prosthesis seems more likely to depend on the preference of the surgeon or the hospital, rather than on objectifying problems with the prosthesis.The current article presents an algorithm for the work-up and treatment of most complications that can occur following RHA.Five subgroups of problems were identified: osteoarthritis, stiffness, instability, infection and implant-related issues.In short, the preferred treatment depends mainly on the chondral condition and stability of the elbow joint. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:398-407. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190055.

Global trends in indications for total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review of national registries.

National registries provide useful information in understanding outcomes of surgeries that have late sequelae, especially for rare operations such as total elbow arthroplasty (TEA).A systematic search was performed and data were compiled from the registries to compare total elbow arthroplasty outcomes and evaluate trends. We included six registries from Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and Sweden.Inflammatory arthritis was the most common indication for total elbow arthroplasty, followed by acute fracture and osteoarthritis. When comparing 2000-2009 to 2010-2017 data, total elbow arthroplasty for inflammatory arthritis decreased and total elbow arthroplasty for fracture and osteoarthritis increased. There was an increase in the number of revision TEAs over this time period.The range of indications for total elbow arthroplasty is broadening; total elbow arthroplasty for acute trauma and osteoarthritis is becoming increasingly more common. However, inflammatory arthritis remains the most common indication in recent years. This change is accompanied by an increase in the incidence of revision surgery. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:215-220. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190036.

Outcomes after revision total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although revision arthroplasty surgery is a frequently used treatment for failed total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), published results are conflicting. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the outcomes of revision TEA surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in major databases to find articles relating to outcomes after revision of TEA. Two reviewers independently screened the articles for inclusion, and a third reviewer screened them before final inclusion. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles containing 532 cases were included. The mean age at revision was 61 years. The mean interval between primary and revision arthroplasty was 77 months, and the average follow-up period was 65 months. Different types of prostheses were included, with 69% of the revision prostheses having linked designs and 31% having unlinked designs. The visual analog scale score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Oxford Elbow Score, and range of motion improved significantly after revision surgery. Complications were reported in 232 of 532 cases (44%), leading to reoperations in 22%. After revision with linked prostheses, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, range of flexion-extension, and pronation improved significantly more than with unlinked designs. CONCLUSION: Improved functional outcomes can be expected after revision TEA, but the complication rate remains high. Revision TEA should still be considered a salvage procedure for failed TEA. Linked designs for revision TEA result in better outcomes than unlinked designs in the midterm follow-up.

Why does radial head arthroplasty fail today? A systematic review of recent literature.

Since the introduction of the radial head prosthesis (RHP) in 1941, many designs have been introduced. It is not clear whether prosthesis design parameters are related to early failure. The aim of this systematic review is to report on failure modes and to explore the association between implant design and early failure.A search was conducted to identify studies reporting on failed primary RHP. The results are clustered per type of RHP based on: material, fixation technique, modularity, and polarity. Chi-square tests are used to compare reasons for failure between the groups.Thirty-four articles are included involving 152 failed radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) in 152 patients. Eighteen different types of RHPs have been used.The most frequent reasons for revision surgery after RHA are (aseptic) loosening (30%), elbow stiffness (20%) and/or persisting pain (17%). Failure occurs after an average of 34 months (range, 0-348 months; median, 14 months).Press-fit prostheses fail at a higher ratio because of symptomatic loosening than intentionally loose-fit prostheses and prostheses that are fixed with an expandable stem (p < 0.01).Because of the many different types of RHP used to date and the limited numbers and evidence on early failure of RHA, the current data provide no evidence for a specific RHP design. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:659-667. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180099.

Interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment after radial head arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Radiographs are part of routine clinical care after radial head arthroplasty (RHA). Therefore, the aim of this diagnostic study was to assess the interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment following RHA. METHODS: Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 24 consecutive patients who underwent press-fit bipolar RHA were evaluated with respect to 14 parameters by 14 orthopaedic surgeons specializing in the elbow: shaft loosening (AP, lateral), subcollar bone resorption, nonbridging heterotopic ossification, capitellar erosion, capitellar osteopenia, implant size, ulnohumeral joint gapping, ulnohumeral joint degeneration, proximal radio-ulnar joint congruency, stem size, stem positioning (AP, lateral) and component dissociation or polyethylene wear of the head with increased angulation. Observer agreement was evaluated using the multirater kappa (κ) measure. RESULTS: Nine of 14 parameters had poor interobserver agreement [κ = 0.0 to 0.20, confidence interval (CI) = 0.0 to 0.31). Four parameters had fair agreement: subcollar bone resorption (κ = 0.27, CI = 0.12 to 0.40), capitellar erosion (κ = 0.30, CI = 0.20 to 0.40), ulnohumeral joint degeneration (κ = 0.35, CI = 0.22 to 0.51) and stem positioning in AP view (κ = 0.24, CI = 0.14 to 0.36). One parameter had moderate agreement: nonbridging heterotopic ossification (κ = 0.47, CI = 0.31 to 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The overall interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment following press-fit bipolar RHA was poor among experienced elbow surgeons. Therefore, radiographic evaluation after RHA should be interpreted with caution when making treatment decisions.

Continuous passive motion and physical therapy (CPM) versus physical therapy (PT) versus delayed physical therapy (DPT) after surgical release for elbow contractures; a study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The elbow is prone to stiffness after trauma. To regain functional elbow motion several conservative- and surgical treatment options are available. Conservative treatment includes physical therapy, intra-articular injections with corticosteroids and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program. If conservative treatment fails, an operative release of the posttraumatic stiff elbow is often performed. The best Evidence-Based rehabilitation protocol for patients after an operative release is unknown to date and differs per surgeon, hospital and country. Options include early- or delayed motion supervised by a physical therapist, immediate continuous passive motion (CPM), (night) splinting and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program. METHODS/DESIGN: The SET-Study (Stiff Elbow Trial) is a single-centre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. The primary objective of this study is to compare the active Range of Motion (ROM) (flexion arc and rotational arc) twelve months after surgery between three groups. The first group will receive in-hospital CPM in combination with early motion Physical Therapy (PT) supervised by a physical therapist, the second group will receive only in-hospital early motion PT supervised by a physical therapist and the third group will receive outpatient supervised PT from postoperative day seven till ten. Secondary outcome measures will be Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), the quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) score, Visual Analogue pain Scale in rest and activity (VAS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Short Form (SF)-36, the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R) and the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for the upper limb. DISCUSSION: A successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the best rehabilitation protocol in order to (re)gain optimal motion after surgical release of the stiff elbow. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register: NTR6067 , 31-8-2016.

Clinical and radiographic outcome of revision surgery of total elbow prosthesis: midterm results in 19 cases.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report on the midterm outcomes and complications of revision surgery of total elbow arthroplasty. METHODS: All patients who had undergone total elbow arthroplasty revision surgery between 2009 and 2014 with semiconstrained total elbow prostheses were prospectively enrolled in the study. Records were reviewed for demographic data; baseline measurements; and several follow-up assessments including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, Oxford Elbow Score, range of motion, satisfaction, and radiographs. RESULTS: A total of 19 revision arthroplasties were included. At a mean follow-up of 57 months, there had been 1 rerevision and 2 removals. One patient was excluded from follow-up because of confounding comorbidity. At last follow-up, MEPS values and VAS pain scores both improved (P < .01). The rate of combined good and excellent results on the MEPS was 53%. The mean VAS scores for pain at rest and with activity were 2 and 4, respectively. Fair results for the Oxford Elbow Score were reported, with a mean score of 28 points. Range of motion improved to an average flexion-extension arc of 108° (P < .01), and the pronation-supination arc improved to an average of 123° (P < .01). All elbows were stable at last follow-up (P < .01). Radiographs showed nonprogressive osteolysis around the prosthesis in 3 cases (19%) and suspicion of loosening in 1 (6%). In 11 patients postoperative complications occurred. Of 15 patients, 13 (87%) were satisfied with the result of the revision procedure. CONCLUSION: Revision of total elbow prostheses leads to satisfactory results, less pain, and better elbow function. This procedure is related to a relatively high complication rate.

Clinical and radiographic outcome of revision surgery of radial head prostheses: midterm results in 16 patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about revision surgery of radial head arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to report on the clinical and radiographic outcome of revision arthroplasty of the elbow with a bipolar metallic radial head prosthesis. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, we used either a press-fit or cemented RHS bipolar radial head prosthesis for revision surgery of radial head arthroplasty in 16 patients. Patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. Differences in outcome parameters before and after revision surgery were compared. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 75 months (range, 36-116 months), none of the revised radial head prostheses needed a second revision. None of the stems showed radiographic signs of loosening. In 1 patient the head was dissociated from the prosthesis. The average flexion-extension arc was 127° (range, 105°-140°), and the average pronation-supination arc was 138° (range, 90°-160°). Stability scores improved after revision surgery, resulting in 13 stable elbows (P = .01). In 8 patients the Oxford Elbow Score was between 37 and 48 points. The percentage of patients with either good or excellent results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 63%. The mean score on the EQ-5D (EuroQol Five Dimensions) was 80 (range, 63-100), and the visual analog scale scores both for pain at rest and for pain with activity improved to 3 (range, 0-9) and 4 (range, 0-9), respectively (P < .001). All but 1 patient was satisfied with the results of the revision procedure. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision surgery of a radial head prostheses are favorable.

Radial Head Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the expanding body of literature on radial head arthroplasty, the increasing understanding of elbow anatomy, biomechanics, and kinetics, and the evolution of surgical techniques and prosthesis designs, there is currently no evidence to support one type of radial head prosthesis over another. The purposes of the present report were to review the literature and to explore the association between prosthesis design variables and the timing of surgery and the outcome of modern radial head arthroplasty. METHODS: The literature search was limited to studies involving skeletally mature patients. Major databases were searched from January 1940 to May 2015 to identify studies relating to functional and subjective outcomes and radiographic results after radial head arthroplasty. RESULTS: Thirty articles involving 727 patients were included. Seventy percent of the implants were made of cobalt-chromium, 15% were made of pyrocarbon, 9% were made of titanium, and 6% were made of Vitallium. Seventy percent were monopolar, and 30% were bipolar. Twenty-one percent were cemented in place, 32% were press-fit, 32% were intentionally loose-fit, and 15% were fixed with an expandable stem. The weighted average duration of follow-up was 45 months. The rate of revision ranged from 0% to 29% among studies. The incidence of revision was 8% during 2,714 person-years of follow-up across all 727 patients, yielding a crude overall revision rate of 2.06 per 100 person-years of follow-up. The revision rate was not significantly affected by prosthesis polarity, material, or fixation technique, nor was it significantly affected by the delay of treatment. There was also no significant effect of prosthesis polarity, material, or fixation technique on postoperative range of motion. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was only reported for half of the overall patient population, but, among those patients, the combined rate of excellent and good results was 85%. Seven percent of the overall patient population underwent secondary surgery about the elbow other than revision surgery. Twenty-three percent were reported to have 1 or more complications. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our analysis of the peer-reviewed English-language literature on radial head arthroplasty from January 1940 to May 2015, there seems to be no evidence to support one type of radial head prosthesis over another. The only exception is that silicone prostheses have been shown to be biologically and biomechanically insufficient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cemented bipolar radial head arthroplasty: midterm follow-up results.

BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of bipolar over monopolar radial head arthroplasty include better accommodation of radiocapitellar malalignment, reduction of capitellar abrasion, and reduction of stress at the bone-to-cement and cement-to-implant interfaces. Our purpose was to report the midterm results of cemented bipolar radial head arthroplasty. METHODS: Twenty-five patients were treated by cemented bipolar radial head arthroplasty for acute fracture of the radial head, earlier treatment that had failed, or posttraumatic sequelae. One patient refused follow-up after surgery. Results are presented for the remaining 24 patients. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 50 months (range, 24-72 months), 1 prosthesis (4%) had been removed 2 years after implantation for dissociation of the prosthesis due to failure of the snap-on mechanism. There were 2 (8%) additional radiologic failures in the subluxated position: 1 prosthesis due to malalignment of the radius onto the capitellum and another due to ulnohumeral erosion. The average flexion-extension arc was 129° (range, 80°-140°), and the average pronation-supination arc was 131° (range, 40°-180°). According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the combined excellent and good results accounted for 83%. In 8 patients, the bipolar design compensated for radiocapitellar malalignment. CONCLUSIONS: The overall midterm outcome of this series of 25 cemented bipolar radial head arthroplasties can be considered favorable. There was 1 (4%) revision and 2 (8%) additional radiologic failures. The bipolar design was able to compensate for radiocapitellar malalignment. We suggest considering a cemented bipolar radial head prosthesis in case of concerns about radiocapitellar alignment.

Press-fit bipolar radial head arthroplasty, midterm results.

BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of bipolar compared with monopolar radial head arthroplasty include better accommodation of radiocapitellar malalignment, reduction of capitellar abrasion, and reduction of stress at the bone-implant interfaces. Our purpose was to report the midterm results of press-fit bipolar radial head arthroplasty. METHODS: Thirty patients were treated by press-fit bipolar radial head arthroplasty for acute fracture of the radial head, failed earlier treatment, or post-traumatic sequelae. Three patients were lost to follow-up. Results are presented for the remaining 27 patients. RESULTS: At mean follow-up of 48 months (range, 28-73), there had been 3 (11%) revisions. Two involved conversion to prosthetic radiocapitellar hemiarthroplasty for symptomatic capitellar abrasion; a third involved exchange of the articular component (ie, head) for instability. In all, the stems appeared well fixed. A prosthesis in a subluxed position accounted for the 1 (4%) additional radiologic failure. The average flexion-extension arc was 136° (range, 120°-145°), and the average pronation-supination arc was 138° (range, 70°-180°). According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the combined excellent and good results accounted for 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The overall midterm outcome of this series of 30 press-fit bipolar radial head arthroplasties can be considered favorable. Although the revision rate was 11%, the stems were well fixed in all. There was 1 (4%) additional radiologic failure. We suggest considering a press-fit bipolar radial head prosthesis for acute comminuted radial head fractures with limited bone loss of the proximal radius.

The Size of the Radial Tuberosity is Not Related to the Occurrence of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures: A Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertrophic changes at the radial tuberosity have traditionally been related to distal biceps tendon degeneration and rupture. From supination to pronation of the forearm, the space available for the distal biceps tendon between de lateral ulna and radial bicipital tuberosity (RBT) decreases by almost 50%. A hypertrophic change at the radial tuberosity further reduces this space with impingement of the distal biceps tendon as a result. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the size of the RBT plays a role in the pathophysiology of distal biceps tendon ruptures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients with a surgically proven distal biceps tendon rupture were matched to controls, in a 1:1 ratio. The size of the RBT was expressed as a ratio of the maximum diameter of the radius at the RBT to the diameter of the diaphysis just distal to the RBT (RD ratio), measured on standard radiographs of the elbow. The RD ratio of patients and matched controls were compared. RESULTS: The mean RD ratio in control group was 1.25 and not significantly different from the mean 1.30 in the group of patients with a distal biceps tendon rupture. Each 0.1 point increase in RD ratio results in an estimated 60% increase of the rupture odds, which was not significant either. CONCLUSION: Based on the RD ratio on conventional radiographs of the elbow, there was no significant difference in RBT size between patients with a distal biceps tendon rupture and matched controls without biceps tendon pathology.

Clinical relevance of distal biceps insertional and footprint anatomy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to present an overview, based on a literature search, of surgical anatomy for distal biceps tendon repairs, based on the current literature. METHODS: A narrative review was performed using Pubmed/Medline using key words: Search terms were distal biceps, insertional, and anatomy. RESULTS: Last decade, the interest in both reconstruction techniques, as well as surgical anatomy of the distal biceps tendon, has increased. The insights into various aspects of distal biceps tendon anatomy (two tendons, bicipital tuberosity, lacertus fibrosis, bicipital-radial bursa, posterior interosseous nerve, and lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve) have evolved significantly in the last years. CONCLUSION: Thorough knowledge of the anatomy is essential for the surgeon in order to understand the biomechanics of rupture and reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon and to avoid injuries of the nerves. Some tips and tricks are provided, and some pitfalls were described to avoid complications and optimize surgical outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Refixation techniques and approaches for distal biceps tendon ruptures: a systematic review of clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Surgical fixation is the preferred method of treatment for the ruptured distal biceps tendon in active patients. To date, no fixation technique has been proven superior in a clinical setting. The purpose of the study was to systematically review the available literature on approach and fixation methods for distal biceps tendon repair in a clinical setting and to determine the optimal fixation methods of the distal biceps tendon on the radial tuberosity. Our hypothesis was that the outcomes would not be significantly different among the various fixation techniques and approaches. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature on anatomic reconstruction methods for distal biceps tendon ruptures was performed. The outcome measures evaluated were postoperative range of motion, elbow flexion and supination strength, and complication rates and types. RESULTS: Forty articles were included, representing 1074 patients divided into 4 fixation groups: suture anchors, bone tunnels, interference screws, and cortical buttons. There was no significant difference in range of motion and strength between the different approaches and fixation techniques. Complications were significantly less common after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation (P < .0005). CONCLUSIONS: There were significantly fewer complications after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation. The double-incision approach had significantly fewer complications than the single-incision anterior approach, and the bone tunnel fixation had significantly fewer complications than the other 3 fixation techniques. However, as the double-incision approach was used with bone tunnel fixation in 84% of cases, there was a strong interrelationship between these variables.

Current concepts in the management of radial head fractures.

Fracture of the radial head is a common injury. Over the last decades, the radial head is increasingly recognized as an important stabilizer of the elbow. In order to maintain stability of the injured elbow, goals of treatment of radial head fractures have become more and more towards restoring function and stability of the elbow. As treatment strategies have changed over the years, with an increasing amount of literature on this subject, the purpose of this article was to provide an overview of current concepts of the management of radial head fractures.

The effect of trauma and patient related factors on radial head fractures and associated injuries in 440 patients.

BACKGROUND: Radial head fractures are commonly interpreted as isolated injuries, and it is assumed that the energy transferred during trauma has its influence on the risk on associated ipsilateral upper limb injuries. However, relationships between Mason classification, mechanism of injury, and associated injuries have been reported only once before in a relatively small population. The purpose of this study was to define whether trauma mechanism and patient related factors are of influence on the type of radial head fracture and associated injuries to the ipsilateral upper limb in 440 patients. METHODS: The radiographs and medical records of 440 patients that presented with a fracture of the radial head were retrospectively analyzed. The medical records of all patients were searched for (1) the trauma mechanism and (2) associated injuries of the ipsilateral upper limb. The mechanism of injury was classified as being low-energy trauma (LET) or high-energy trauma (HET). RESULTS: Associated injuries to the ipsilateral upper limb were present in 46 patients (11%). The mean age of patients with associated injuries (52 years) was significantly higher compared to patients without associated injuries (47 years) (P = 0.038), and female patients with a radial head fracture were older than males. Injury patterns were classified as LET in 266 patients (60%) and as HET in 174 patients. HETs were significantly more common in young men. Associated injuries were not significantly different distributed between HET versus LET (P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Injuries concomitant to radial head fractures were present in 11% of patients and the risk for these associated injuries increases with age. Trauma mechanism did not have a significant influence on the risk of associated injuries. Complex elbow trauma in patients with a radial head fracture seems therefore to be suspected based on patient characteristics, rather than mechanism of injury.

Reconstruction of distal biceps tendon ruptures with a cortical button.

PURPOSE: Reconstruction of the ruptured distal biceps tendon is best done with a cortical button technique according to recent biomechanical studies. However, clinical outcome studies that evaluate the cortical button reconstruction technique are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a cortical button reconstruction technique in patients with a traumatic distal biceps tendon rupture. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with 24 traumatic distal biceps tendon ruptures underwent surgical treatment. Reconstructions were done using the Endobutton or Toggle Loc. Postoperative evaluation consisted of ROM, strength, stability, neurological status and standard radiographs in AP view and lateral direction. The Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) questionnaires were also obtained. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 22 months, the mean strength for flexion was 100 % (SD 21.3) and for supination 97 % (SD 7.8), compared to the contralateral side. There were complications in 8 patients (36 %), and heterotopic ossifications were seen on radiographs in 23 % of patients. Heterotopic ossifications were symptomatic in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results after distal biceps tendon refixation with a cortical button were good according to ROM, MEPI and qDASH scores and strength. However, this procedure was accompanied with complications; in particular, the formation of heterotopic ossifications was frequently seen, though clinically relevant in only one patient.