Elbow hemiarthroplasty vs. open reduction internal fixation for acute Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type 13C fractures-A systematic review

© 2022 The Authors.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JSES international. - 2020. - 6(2022), 5 vom: 15. Sept., Seite 713-722
1. Verfasser: Nielsen, Andreas F (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Al-Hamdani, Ali, Rasmussen, Jeppe V, Olsen, Bo S
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2022
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:JSES international
Schlagworte:Journal Article Review AO type C Arthroplasty Distal humeral fractures Elbow fractures Fracture fixation Mayo Elbow Performance Score Osteosynthesis Systematic review
LEADER 01000caa a22002652c 4500
001 NLM345987772
003 DE-627
005 20250303194031.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.06.002  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed25n1153.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM345987772 
035 |a (NLM)36081704 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Nielsen, Andreas F  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Elbow hemiarthroplasty vs. open reduction internal fixation for acute Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type 13C fractures-A systematic review 
264 1 |c 2022 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Revised 12.09.2022 
500 |a published: Electronic-eCollection 
500 |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2022 The Authors. 
520 |a Background: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the standard treatment for multifragmentary intra-articular distal humeral fractures. Fractures not amenable by ORIF are treated with total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). In recent years, elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) has been used as an alternative to TEA, as weight bearing restrictions and risk of component loosening are lower. We systematically reviewed the literature reporting functional outcomes and complication rates after either EHA or ORIF for Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type 13C fractures 
520 |a Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria were at least 5 patients, aged ≥50 years, AO/OTA type 13C fracture treated with ORIF or EHA, and evaluation with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The results were synthesized qualitatively using weighted means. No comparative statistical analyses were done 
520 |a Results: We included 27 articles, which included 96 patients treated with EHA and 535 patients treated with ORIF. We identified 1 randomized controlled trial and 26 case series. The weighted mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 86.9 (n = 89) in the EHA group and 84.7 (n = 535) in the ORIF group. There were 26 (33%) complications (n = 78) in the EHA group and 103 (38%) complications (n = 270) in the ORIF group. Complication rates were generally high in both groups 
520 |a Conclusion: We found comparable results of EHA and ORIF, which indicate that EHA is a viable treatment option for AO/OTA type 13C fractures not amenable by ORIF. Because of high risk of bias, interpretation of the results should be done with caution 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Review 
650 4 |a AO type C 
650 4 |a Arthroplasty 
650 4 |a Distal humeral fractures 
650 4 |a Elbow fractures 
650 4 |a Fracture fixation 
650 4 |a Mayo Elbow Performance Score 
650 4 |a Osteosynthesis 
650 4 |a Systematic review 
700 1 |a Al-Hamdani, Ali  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Rasmussen, Jeppe V  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Olsen, Bo S  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t JSES international  |d 2020  |g 6(2022), 5 vom: 15. Sept., Seite 713-722  |w (DE-627)NLM307818438  |x 2666-6383  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:6  |g year:2022  |g number:5  |g day:15  |g month:09  |g pages:713-722 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2022.06.002  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_50 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 6  |j 2022  |e 5  |b 15  |c 09  |h 713-722