Lara Zankena, Lisa Luna Beck, Christian Hierholzer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Florin Allemann
{"title":"全肘关节置换术前后假体周围骨折的分类治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lara Zankena, Lisa Luna Beck, Christian Hierholzer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Florin Allemann","doi":"10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.</p>","PeriodicalId":46782,"journal":{"name":"Patient Safety in Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12487118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classification-based treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lara Zankena, Lisa Luna Beck, Christian Hierholzer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Florin Allemann\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12487118/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Safety in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Classification-based treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.
Methods: This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.
Results: This systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).
Conclusion: Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.