微型钢板治疗Mason Ⅲ型桡骨小头骨折

目的评价微型钢板治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨小头骨折的临床效果。方法对10例MasonⅢ型骨折进行微型钢板内固定，根据患者肘关节活动疼痛、稳定性和肌力情况，依照Broberg和Morrey肘关节评分标准进行功能评价。结果10例患者随访12-24个月，平均20个月，肘关节平均评分58分（30～90）分，其中优1例，良4例，差5例，优良率50％。结论切开复位微型钢板内固定治疗复杂的MasonⅢ型桡骨小头骨折，不能取得良好的临床效果，如果要获得较好的肘关节活动和早期康复，可考虑桡骨小头切除或置换。     

切开复位内固定与桡骨头假体置换术治疗MasonⅡ～Ⅳ型桡骨头或颈骨折的疗效观察

目的探讨微型钢板与假体置换治疗MasonⅡ～Ⅳ型桡骨头、颈骨折的临床疗效。方法运用微型钢板内固定与假体置换治疗46例桡骨头、颈骨折。结果 46例获得随访1~4年,肘关节功能评定,内固定组:优16例,良8例,可6例,差2例,优良率75.0%;置换组:优8例,良4例,可2例,优良率85.7%。结论采用微型钢板内固定治疗MasonⅡ型桡骨头、颈骨折具有良好的临床疗效,对于桡骨头骨折块多于3块的MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型骨折,运用假体置换治疗近期疗效满意。     

手术治疗桡骨头骨折的疗效分析

[目的]探讨不同类型桡骨头骨折手术治疗方法及其疗效。[方法]回顾分析2006年1月～2015年6月本科收治的57例桡骨头骨折的患者。根据Mason分型,其中Ⅱ型19例、Ⅲ型33例、Ⅳ型5例。根据骨折类型,Ⅱ型19例中,14例采用切开复位内固定,4例采用克氏针闭合撬拨复位,1例采用切开撬拨复位。Ⅲ型33例中,15例采用桡骨头置换,12例采用切开复位内固定,6例采用桡骨头切除。Ⅳ型5例中,4例采用切开复位内固定,其中1例同时使用外固定架,1例采用桡骨头置换。采用肘关节活动度、Mayo肘关节功能评分评价临床效果。[结果] 49例患者获得随访,随访时间11～48个月,平均(28.53±6.54)个月。末次随访时根据Mayo肘关节功能评分标准评定疗效:优40例,良7例,中2例;优良率为95.92%。所有病例内固定及假体均未见松动,无1例发生感染和神经损伤。末次随访时X线片显示4例(Ⅲ型3例,Ⅳ型1例)发生异位骨化。Mason Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ型骨折患者术后患侧肘关节活动范围小于健侧,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论] Mason Ⅱ型骨折采用切开复位内固定可取得满意效果,Ⅲ、Ⅳ型首选切开复位内固定,若无法重建桡骨头,可选择人工桡骨头置换,对于桡骨头切除应当慎重选择。     

假体置换和切开复位内固定治疗Mason Ⅲ型桡骨头骨折的Meta分析

[目的]系统评价假体置换和切开复位内固定治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的疗效和安全性。[方法]计算机检索2004年6月~2014年6月期间在Pub Med、MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、CBM、CNKI、万方和维普数据库中公开发表的假体置换和切开复位内固定治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的文献,对文献依据Cochrane系统评价方法学进行质量评价,用Rev Man 5.2软件进行Meta分析。[结果]最终共纳入3篇随机对照研究,8篇回顾性病例对照研究,共411例患者,所有文献的质量普遍不高,Meta分析结果显示:(1)在Broberg and Morrey肘关节功能优良率、评分以及术后并发症方面,假体置换要显著优于切开复位内固定(P0.000 01);(2)在肘关节活动度方面两者比较无显著差异;(3)在VAS评分方面两者的优劣尚无定论。[结论]人工假体置换治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨小头骨折较切开复位内固定具有一定的优势,但目前还欠缺对假体置换的中长期随访结果,故仍需低风险、高质量的临床试验研究进一步加以验证。     

内固定与假体置换治疗Mason Ⅲ型桡骨头骨折的比较研究

目的比较切开复位内固定术与双极桡骨头假体置换术治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的疗效。方法对17例MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折患者采用Tornier骨水泥柄、双极桡骨头假体进行置换,其中新鲜Ma- sonⅢ型骨折15例,陈旧性MasonⅢ型骨折2例。手术均采用肘关节后外侧入路,17例均行环状韧带修复。术后48 h开始关节逐步被动功能操练。另外8例MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折患者采用肘后外侧入路切开复位空心钉与多枚克氏针内固定作为对照。结果假体置换组14例患者得到6～27个月(平均12．5个月)随访,按照Broberg和Morrey的肘关节功能评分标准进行评分：优9例,良4例,可1例,优良率为92．8%；3例出现异位骨化,下尺桡关节未见异常改变。8例MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折内固定患者均得到10～21个月(平均14个月)随访,肘关节功能评分：良1例,可4例,差3例,优良率为12．5%。两组间优良率比较差异有极显著性意义(O＜0．01)。结论采用双极桡骨头假体置换的方法治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折比切开复位内固定的方法更有利于恢复肘关节的稳定、伸屈活动及前臂的旋转活动。     

桡骨小头假体置换治疗桡骨小头骨折

目的报告双极桡骨小头假体置换治疗严重桡骨小头粉碎性骨折的初步临床结果。方法自2002年8月～2005年6月采用双极人工桡骨小头假体(浮动杯假体)置换的方法治疗MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型桡骨小头骨折10例,新鲜骨折9例,陈旧性骨折1例。结果所有患者随访6～40个月,平均14.9个月,肘关节屈伸平均133.5°/9.0°,前臂旋前/旋后平均78.5°/84.0°,3例遗留肘关节轻度疼痛,1例肘关节轻度外翻不稳,3例肘关节轻度乏力。Broberg-Morrey肘关节功能评分平均93分,优6例,良3例,可1例,优良率为90%。结论双极桡骨小头假体置换治疗难以重建的桡骨小头骨折的近期效果满意,远期疗效有待进一步随访。     

手术治疗桡骨头Mason Ⅱ～Ⅳ型骨折的疗效分析

目的观察手术治疗Mason Ⅱ~Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折的临床疗效。方法对58例Mason Ⅱ~Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折患者采用手术治疗,其中Herbert螺钉固定9例,微型钢板固定42例,桡骨头假体置换7例。采用Broberg-Morrey评分标准评估肘关节功能。结果患者均获得随访,时间2~42个月。21例Mason Ⅲ~Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折患者中肘关节僵硬5例,骨折不愈合2例,异位骨化3例;37例Mason Ⅱ型桡骨头骨折患者中肘关节僵硬2例,无骨折不愈合及异位骨化。末次随访按照肘部Broberg-Morrey评分标准进行评估:优34例,良12例,可3例,差9例,优良率79%。结论对于Mason Ⅱ~Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折患者建议行切开复位内固定;对于桡骨头粉碎骨折并伴有肘关节不稳患者一期桡骨头置换术也可取得较好的早期效果;但是中远期疗效需要进一步观察。     

T型微型钢板内固定治疗桡骨小头骨折28例

目的：探讨T型微型钢板内固定治疗桡骨小头骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析本院2006年6月至2010年6月采用T型微型钢板内固定治疗桡骨小头骨折28例的临床资料。结果所有病例随访6—24个月,平均12个月,骨折均愈合。根据Mayo肘关节功能评分标准,优良率92．8％。结论T型微型钢板内固定治疗桡骨小头骨折,特别是对移位明显的MasonⅡ型及MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型,疗效满意。     

假体置换与切开复位内固定治疗成人MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折临床结局的系统评价与Meta分析

背景：对于MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折,采用何种术式治疗一直是争论的焦点。 目的：比较假体置换与切开复位内固定治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的术后优良率、并发症、肘关节功能。 方法：计算机检索PubMed（1950/2014-03）、OVID（1950/2014-03）、MEDLINE（1950/2014-03）、EMBASE（1980/2014-03）、CENTRAL（The Cochrane Library,1993/2014）、CBM（1978/2014-03）、万方数据库（1981/2014-03）、CNKI（1979/2014-03）、维普数据库（1989/2014-03）。搜集MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折假体置换及切开复位内固定的对照研究并加以系统评价。用Revmen 5.1统计学软件进行异质性分析及Meta分析。 结果：本研究最终纳入2篇随机对照试验和7篇临床对照试验,总计344例患者。采用假体置换155例,切开复位内固定189例。假体置换组优良率[OR=3.17,95%CI （1.78,5.65）,P〈0.0001],并发症[OR=0.22,95%CI（0.10,0.50）,P=0.0003],Broberg-Morrey肘关节功能评分[WMD=12.43,95%CI （8.02,16.85）,P〈0.00001]与切开复位内固定组相比,均有明显优势。 结论：现有的有限证据表明,通过优良率、肘关节功能评分及并发症评价证实人工假体置换治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨小头骨折较切开复位内固定具有更大优势,且差异具有统计学意义。受纳入文献数量和质量的限制,Meta分析结果尚有待与高质量的大样本随机对照试验予以证实。     

桡骨头MasonⅢ型骨折切开复位内固定治疗

目的 探讨通过切开复位内固定术保留Mason Ⅲ型骨折中桡骨头的方法。方法 以肱骨小头及尺骨桡切迹为参照，复位骨折的桡骨头，用克氏针经其安全区或环形关节面下方暂固定于尺骨近端，头下骨缺损以自体三层皮质髂骨填充，小T型接骨板固定。结果 经2～4年随访，7例患者中6例肘关节功能均达到优或良，1例骨不连。结论 MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折以该方法治疗，可减少行桡骨头切除或假体置换的病例。     

A comparative study of internal fixation and prosthesis replacement for radial head fractures of Mason type III

Although several treatment options for radial head fractures are available, no clear solutions exist. In this study we therefore compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with bipolar radial head prosthesis replacement in treatment of radial head fractures of Mason type III. Cement stem and bipolar radial prosthesis were used to treat 12 fresh cases and two old cases of Mason type III radial head fracture. As a control group, another eight cases of radial head type III fracture were treated with ORIF with cannulated screws and Kirschner (K) wires. The 14 patients who received radial head prosthesis replacement were followed-up for 15.9 months (range 10-27 months). According to elbow functional evaluation criteria by Broberg and Morrey, we found excellent results in nine cases, good in four, and fair in one. Mean follow-up of the eight cases in the ORIF group was 14 months (range 10-21 months), with good results in one case, fair in four, and poor in three. The result was good or excellent in 92.9% of prosthesis replacement patients and in 12.5% of ORIF patients. This difference is statistically significant (P = 0.0004; Fisher's exact test). We concluded that bipolar radial head prosthesis replacement is better than ORIF in treatment of Mason type III radial head fracture.     

不同手术方法治疗桡骨头Mason Ⅲ、Ⅳ型骨折的疗效分析

目的 比较分析不同手术方法治疗桡骨头Mason Ⅲ、Ⅳ型骨折患者的疗效.方法 回颐性分析2002年1月至2008年12月采取不同手术方法治疗且获得随访的30例桡骨头MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型骨折患者资料,行切开复位内固定术组(切开组)19例,男12例,女7例;平均28.8岁(16～51岁);左侧6例,右侧13例;Mason分型:Ⅲ型12例,Ⅳ型7例;合并尺骨鹰嘴骨折2例,冠状突骨折4例,内侧副韧带损伤3例.桡骨头切除(切除组)11例,男7例,女4例;平均33.2岁(20～55岁);左侧4例,右侧7例;全部为Mason Ⅲ型;合并尺骨鹰嘴骨折1例,冠状突骨折3例,内侧副韧带损伤2例.同时处理合并的尺骨冠状突骨折和内侧副韧带损伤.比较两组患者的肌力减弱发生率、疼痛发生率、关节活动度减少、提携角增加、Broberg-Morrey肘关节功能评分.结果 切开组患者随访1.0～5.5年,平均30个月;切除组患者随访2～6年,平均33个月.两组患者术后腕部疼痛发生率、屈伸活动度减少、提携角增加差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05),切除组较切开组提携角明显增大,其中改变最明显的1例(切除术后6年者)提携角增大18°.其他指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).Broberg-Morrey肘关节功能评分,切开组:优5例,良9例,可4例,差1例;切除组:优1例,良6例,可3例,差1例.结论 桡骨头MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型骨折行切开复位内固定术治疗的关节功能恢复满意,且长期并发症较桡骨头切除术少,建议对此类患者应尽量保留桡骨头,行切开复位内固定.     

Therapeutic Effect of Resection,Prosthetic Replacement and Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for the Treatment of Mason Type III Radial Head Fracture

Abstract

Aim of the Study: Mason type III radial head fractures are a source of concern due to the severe injury and poor recovery. At present, radial head resection, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and prosthetic replacement are three common treatment methods for these fractures. The clinical efficacy and postoperative complications are controversial, which makes it difficult for physicians to determine the most appropriate regimen. Herein, this present prospective, non-randomized, parallel-controlled study was conducted to compare the therapeutic effects and identify the most effective treatment method for Mason type III radial head fracture. Materials and Methods: We assessed patients with Mason type III radial head fracture treated with resection, prosthetic replacement, and ORIF to compare preoperative and postoperative pain condition, elbow joint function, curative effect, and complication rate. A visual analog scale was used to score pain. The elbow joint function was observed using the Broberg–Morrey elbow joint score. Results: No significant differences were found in patient demographics among the resection, prosthetic replacement, and ORIF groups. The prosthetic replacement and ORIF procedures were more complex and had higher technical requirements. Prosthetic replacement and ORIF enabled higher elbow joint scores and lower pain scores than resection. Excellent and good ratings were highest and complication rates were lowest in the prosthetic replacement group, followed by the ORIF group. Conclusion: Our results showed that prosthetic replacement is more effective than ORIF and radial head resection in relieving pain, functional recovery and reducing complications in the treatment of Mason type III radial head fractures.     

Clinical results after different operative treatment methods of radial head and neck fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome

Introduction

There is no consensus on optimal treatment strategy for Mason type II–IV fractures. Most recommendations are based upon experts’ opinion.

Methods

An OVID-based literature search were performed to identify studies on surgical treatment of radial head and neck fracture. Specific focus was placed on extracting data describing clinical efficacy and outcome by using the Mason classification and including elbow function scores.A total of 841 clinical studies were identified describing in total the clinical follow-up of 1264 patients.

Results

For type II radial head and neck fractures the significant best treatment option seems to be ORIF with an overall success rate of 98% by using screws or biodegradable (polylactide) pins.ORIF with a success rate of 92% shows the best results in the treatment of type III fractures and seem to be better than resection and implantation of a prosthesis. For this fracture type the ORIF with screws (96%), biodegradable (polylactide) pins (88%) and plates (83%) showed the best results.In the treatment of type IV fractures similar results could be found with a tendency of the best results after ORIF followed by resection and implantation of a prosthesis.If a prosthesis was implanted, the primary implantation seems to be associated with a better outcome after type III (87%) and IV (82%) fractures compared to the results after a secondary implantation.

Discussion

Recommendations for surgical treatment of radial head and neck fractures according to the Mason classification can now be given with the best available evidence.Level of evidence: IV     

Reconstruction of Mason type-III and type-IV radial head fractures with a new fixation device: 23 patients followed 1-4 years

BACKGROUND: Treatment options in radial head fractures of Mason types III and IV range from open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to radial head resection with or without prosthetic replacement. PATIENTS: In a prospective study, the radiographic and clinical outcome was evaluated in 23 patients (age median 51 years) with 23 complex radial head fractures median 2 (1-4) years after ORIF using a new fixation device (FFS; Orthofix). 14 Mason type-III fractures with 2 concomitant olecranon fractures and 1 ulnar nerve lesion, and 11 type-IV fractures with 2 olecranon fractures and 2 fractures of the coronoid process were treated. 2 patients were lost to follow-up. In 7 cases of joint instability, an elbow fixator with motion capacity was applied after ORIF of the radial head. RESULTS: No radial head resection was necessary. No secondary dislocations or nonunion occurred. The Morrey elbow score was excellent in 8 and good in 4 Mason type-III fractures and excellent in 5, good in 3, and fair in 3 Mason type-IV fractures. INTERPRETATION: Reconstruction of comminuted radial head fractures can be performed with this device and radial head resection can be avoided.     

桡骨小头粉碎性骨折两种手术方法的疗效分析

目的比较研究桡骨小头切除术与桡骨小头置换术治疗MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型桡骨小头粉碎性骨折的临床疗效。方法1997年1月至2006年5月，共收治26例MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型桡骨小头粉碎性骨折，14例行桡骨小头切除术，12例行桡骨小头置换术。对两组患者的肘、腕关节的疼痛、运动、肌力、X线表现以及肘关节功能评分进行了比较研究。结果两组分别平均随访5．2年和2年，切除组平均肘关节痛觉及视觉模拟（VAS）评分为18．7分，置换组为23．5分（P〈0．01）；切除组肘关节伸直角度平均-12．4°置换组平均5．8°（P〈0．01）；切除组肘关节屈曲度、前臂旋转活动度与置换组差异无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。但两组的伸肘、旋前以及旋后肌力减弱差异有显著性差异（P〈0．01）；切除组提携角平均增大8．7°、桡骨移位2．1mm，置换组分别为1．3°和0．3mm，差异有显著性差异（P〈0．01）；切除组Broderg和Morrey肘关节功能评分平均为80．3分，置换组为91．3分（P〈0．01）。结论与桡骨小头切除术相比，桡骨小头置换术治疗MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型桡骨小头粉碎性骨折可获得较满意的关节活动范围、得到较大的肌力恢复以及良好的关节功能恢复。     

Reconstruction of Mason type-III and type-IV radial head fractures with a new fixation device: 23 patients followed 1–4 years

Background?Treatment options in radial head fractures of Mason types III and IV range from open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to radial head resection with or without prosthetic replacement.

Patients?In a prospective study, the radiographic and clinical outcome was evaluated in 23 patients (age median 51 years) with 23 complex radial head fractures median 2 (1–4) years after ORIF using a new fixation device (FFS; Orthofix). 14 Mason type-III fractures with 2 concomitant olecranon fractures and 1 ulnar nerve lesion, and 11 type-IV fractures with 2 olecranon fractures and 2 fractures of the coronoid process were treated. 2 patients were lost to follow-up. In 7 cases of joint instability, an elbow fixator with motion capacity was applied after ORIF of the radial head.

Results?No radial head resection was necessary. No secondary dislocations or nonunion occurred. The Morrey elbow score was excellent in 8 and good in 4 Mason type-III fractures and excellent in 5, good in 3, and fair in 3 Mason type-IV fractures.

Interpretation?Reconstruction of comminuted radial head fractures can be performed with this device and radial head resection can be avoided.     

Open reduction and internal-fixation versus radial head replacement in treatment of Mason type III radial head fractures

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate whether open reduction and internal-fixation (ORIF) was superior to radial head replacement in treatment of Mason type III radial head fractures by comparing postoperative complication rate and satisfactory rate.

Methods

Clinical trials comparing ORIF with radial head replacement for Mason type III radial head fractures were reviewed published up to September 1, 2012. Methodological quality of each included trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. The analyses were performed with Cochrane RevMan software version 5.1.

Results

One prospective randomized controlled trial and one comparative study involving 67 patients with 67 cases were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Both the forest plots of complication rate and satisfactory rate indicated statistical differences between the two surgical techniques in treatment of Mason type III radial head fractures. The complication rate was 13.9 % in patients treated with radial head replacement and 58.1 % in patients treated with ORIF. The satisfactory rate was 91.7 % in patients treated with radial head replacement and 51.6 % in patients treated with ORIF.

Conclusions

Given the available evidence, radial head replacement appeared to reach better outcomes in patients with Mason type III radial head fractures followed 5 years or less.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic II.     

桡骨头置换术治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折

目的探讨桡骨头置换术治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的临床疗效。方法采用桡骨头置换术治疗12例MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折患者。结果随访6～38个月,无切口感染、桡神经损伤、假体松动等并发症发生。按Mayo肘关节功能评分：优7例,良4例,一般1例。结论桡骨头置换术适用于MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的治疗,有利于恢复肘关节的稳定性和伸屈活动及前臂旋转功能。     

人工桡骨头置换治疗桡骨头粉碎性骨折

目的探讨应用单极人工桡骨头假体置换治疗MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折的疗效。方法对15例MasonⅢ、Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折患者应用人工桡骨头假体进行置换并观察疗效。结果 15例均获随访,时间6～30个月。按Mayo肘关节功能评分评定：优9例,良5例,可1例。无感染发生。结论桡骨头在稳定肘关节及上尺桡关节中起着至关重要的作用,桡骨头骨折如不能修复,假体置换是更好的选择。