Latest News

The radial head is a critical component of elbow anatomy contributing to stability, load transmission, and forearm rotation. In complex elbow injuries — such as comminuted radial head fractures, fracture‑dislocations of the elbow (e.g. “terrible triad” injuries), or associated ligamentous damage — the normal anatomy and biomechanical stability are disrupted. In such settings, radial head replacement (sometimes called radial head arthroplasty, RHA, or prosthetic replacement) has emerged as a key surgical option alongside other strategies like open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), resection, ligament repair, or combinations thereof.

Anatomy, Biomechanics & Types of Injury

To appreciate when and why radial head replacement is used, it’s useful to recall what role the radial head plays:

• It acts as a secondary stabiliser against valgus stress, especially when the medial collateral ligament (MCL) is damaged.
• It helps resist axial (longitudinal) load and contributes to stability in posterolateral rotatory injuries.
• In “terrible triad” patterns (radial head fracture + coronoid fracture + elbow dislocation) and other fracture‑dislocations, the radial head is usually irreparably damaged or contributes significantly to joint instability.

The Mason classification (modified) is often used to classify radial head fractures. Mason type III (comminuted fractures) or type IV (fractures with dislocation) are more severe and frequently where replacement becomes a serious option.

Indications for Radial Head Replacement

From the literature, the main indications are:

1. Unreconstructable fracture of the radial head
   When there are more than three fracture fragments, severe comminution, or the bone quality is poor, making ORIF unlikely to succeed.
2. Associated instability
   If there is ligamentous injury (lateral collateral ligament [LCL], MCL), dislocation, a coronoid process fracture, or other soft tissue damage, then maintaining stability becomes crucial. The radial head helps restore stability in valgus, posterolateral rotatory forces, etc. If the radial head is damaged and cannot be fixed, then replacement helps restore the lateral column and joint congruence.
3. Fracture dislocations and “terrible triad” injuries
   In these, surgeons frequently decide in favour of replacement over fixation if the radial head is too badly damaged or reconstructable only with high risk. Early surgical intervention is associated with better outcomes.
4. When ORIF would likely have a high complication rate
   For example non‑union, hardware failure, secondary surgeries, inability to restore anatomy, risk of stiffness, etc. Some studies comparing ORIF vs RHA in complex patterns find better functional outcomes, less reoperation with replacement in appropriately selected patients.

Techniques and Considerations

Using radial head replacement successfully involves careful attention to multiple surgical and implant‑based details:

• Implant design: Modular vs monoblock, stem type (press-fit, cemented), head diameter and height, smooth vs rough stems. Some recent literature shows that “loose‑fit, polished stem” prostheses may perform well in complex injuries, possibly with less stress at the bone‑implant interface and fewer problems of loosening.
• Size & height of prosthesis: Overstuffing (implant too large or positioned too high) may lead to capitellar overload, pain, stiffness. Under sizing or undersetting may fail to restore stability. The exact anatomical matching is important.
• Timing of surgery: Early repair or replacement (ideally within 1–3 weeks) tends to produce better outcomes in many series. Delayed surgery is associated with worse function and more complications.
• Addressing associated injuries: Besides the radial head, repair of coronoid process, stabilisation of collateral ligaments (especially lateral), sometimes medial if needed. Often the elbow will remain unstable unless all major components are addressed.
• Postoperative rehabilitation: Early mobilisation, physiotherapy, to reduce stiffness. However, must balance with protection of repairs. Also keeping an eye on potential complications (nerve injury, heterotopic ossification etc.).

Outcomes: What Does the Evidence Say?

Here are some key findings from recent studies:

• A study of longer‑term outcomes of radial head arthroplasty for complex elbow fracture‑dislocations (using modular monopolar prostheses) showed decent functional results >10 years, though periprosthetic radiolucency (indicator of bone‑implant interface changes) was noted, and component removals sometimes needed.
• In systematic reviews comparing radial head replacement (RHA) vs reconstruction (ORIF/repair) in “terrible triad” injuries, RHA often shows better range of motion, higher functional scores (MEPS, DASH) and fewer reoperations/complications in those injuries where the radial head is irreparably damaged.
• Implant survival: One study with monopolar radial head prostheses had implant survival ~75.1% at 18 years, though early reoperation/removal risk was high (mostly within the first postoperative year).
• Another recent cohort showed that although RHA is associated with a relatively high risk of reoperation (about 25% in one large acute fracture group), the functional outcomes (QuickDASH, Oxford Elbow Score) remain good for many, and many reoperations are within the first 12 months.
• A study of the “surgical treatment of the radial head” as part of terrible triad injuries (88 patients, mean 4.5 years follow-up) showed that using ORIF for reconstructable fractures and RHA when reconstruction was not feasible achieved good average functional scores (MEPS ~87, OES ~37, DASH ~19) in those cohorts.

Risks, Limitations, and Patient Counselling

While RHA offers many advantages, several important limitations, risks, and trade‑offs must be discussed with patients.

• High early reoperation / removal rates: Many failures, revisions, or removals occur in the first year. Surgeons must warn patients of this.
• Long‑term concerns: Loosening, wear, periprosthetic bone changes, possibility of needing future surgery, risk of arthritis or capitellar overload if sizing/positioning is suboptimal.
• Functional compromise: Even with “successful” operations, full restoration of motion is rarely perfect. Loss especially of extension, supination/pronation may persist. There may be residual pain.
• Soft tissue injury outcomes: Even a well‑implanted radial head prosthesis cannot fully compensate if ligaments (especially collateral ligaments) or coronoid fractures are not addressed. Stability depends on a holistic reconstruction.
• Age, patient demand, comorbidities: Younger patients may be more concerned about long‑term durability; patients with poor bone stock or general health issues may have increased risk of complications.

UK Context & Practice Patterns / Guidance

In the UK, specific BOA guidelines on radial head replacement are not, at least publicly, as detailed as for some other orthopaedic problems. Still:

• The National Joint Registry in the UK lists “radial head replacement” as one of the elbow replacement procedures. The patient information materials describe that radial head replacement involves a short stem and head to replace the top end of the radius and note that implants of different sizes are available to match anatomy.
• NHS patient information leaflets for radial head/neck fractures typically describe that simple fractures are treated non‑operatively, while displaced, comminuted, or those causing mechanical block or instability may require surgery. Radial head replacement is mentioned as one surgical option when fixation is not possible.
• AO Foundation / SurgeryReference guidance (used in UK and internationally) generally indicates that for complex elbow injuries (terrible triad, elbow dislocation with radial head fracture), the first surgical step is to determine if the radial head is reconstructable; if not, replacement is recommended.

Thus, while BOA doesn’t yet have a “definitive guideline” specifically naming every indication of radial head replacement, UK practice tends to follow the international evidence and these intra‑UK sources.

Algorithm / Decision‑Making Summary

Putting together where the evidence supports it, the decision to use radial head replacement in complex elbow injury might follow roughly this pattern:

Summary: Role of Radial Head Replacement

Putting it all together, radial head replacement plays a central role in many complex elbow injuries. Key take‑home points:

• Pillar of stability: RHA is often essential to restore elbow stability in the face of severe fractures and ligament injury. Without it, there is high risk of valgus instability, subluxation, or recurrent dislocation.
• Functional outcomes are good in many cases provided reconstruction is done appropriately, implants are well chosen, and associated injuries are addressed. Even if perfect ROM is not regained, many patients report good to excellent scores on MEPS, DASH, Oxford scores.
• High risk of early complications / reoperations must be acknowledged. Patient counselling is critical. The majority of reoperations happen within 12 months. Longer‑term survivorship of well‑implanted prostheses tends to be favourable (many reports show good survival at 10‑15+ years) but subject to caveats.
• Not always the best choice: If fractures are reconstructable, ORIF may allow preservation of native bone and possibly fewer long‑term issues; for less severe injury patterns, ORIF still has a role. Also, replacement does not remove the need to address soft tissue injuries.

Unanswered Questions & Areas for Further Research

There remain gaps in the evidence, which mean that practice is still evolving:

1. BOA‑level consensus or guideline specifically on radial head replacement in complex elbow injuries (e.g. definitions, implant types, thresholds for choosing replacement vs repair) is still lacking or not widely published.
2. Comparative RCTs of ORIF vs RHA in particular injury subgroups (e.g. certain ages, levels of comminution, ligament injury severity) are still relatively few.
3. Optimal implant design parameters (stem type, head height, modularity), and their biomechanical implications for wearer outcomes, over decades.
4. Long‑term studies in UK populations, including cost‑effectiveness, rehabilitation protocols, and patient‑reported outcome measures over long follow‑up.

Clinical Implications and Recommendations

From this review, some suggested practice recommendations (based on the best available evidence) include:

• In complex elbow injuries involving severe radial head fracture plus soft tissue damage (ligaments, coronoid), strongly consider radial head replacement rather than resection or attempted fixation when reconstruction is unlikely to restore anatomy or stability.
• When replacing, choose implants that allow accurate matching of head size and height; avoid over‑ or undersizing; prefer designs shown to have lower rates of loosening, with smooth or polished stems where evidence supports them.
• Perform surgery as early as feasible once swelling permits, to reduce risk of stiffness and improve functional outcomes.
• Repair associated injuries (ligaments, coronoid) to restore overall elbow stability rather than relying solely on the radial head replacement.
• Plan for and counsel about rehabilitation: early motion, careful physiotherapy, monitoring for complications (heterotopic ossification, nerve issues, loosening).
• Clear patient counselling: expectations (range of motion, pain, need for follow‑ups, possible additional surgery), risks and benefits.

Conclusion

Radial head replacement has become a mainstay in the management of complex elbow injuries — especially for severely comminuted fractures and associated instability (e.g. terrible triad). The evidence (albeit not always from large RCTs) suggests that when used appropriately, it restores stability, yields good functional outcomes, and offers better performance than fixation or excision alone in many settings. However, it is not a panacea: surgical technique, implant choice, patient selection, timing, and managing associated injuries all highly influence outcomes.

In this context, the Skeletal Dynamics ALIGN Radial Head System offers a modern, anatomically driven solution designed to support more predictable and stable outcomes. Its features reflect current thinking in elbow biomechanics and prosthetic design, including:

• An anatomically aligned monoblock head, shaped to better match native patient anatomy.
• A side-loading modular system with a broad selection of stem and neck sizes, allowing surgeons to fine-tune fit and restore joint mechanics more accurately.
• A long, press-fit stem supported by strong clinical results, helping ensure secure fixation without the need for cement.
• Digital stem flutes engineered to improve rotational stability and facilitate a more natural range of forearm motion.

Together, these design elements aim to replicate native kinematics while offering the durability and stability required in complex elbow reconstructions.

If you think a radial head replacement might be indicated in your case, you may wish to explore ALIGN via our website ALIGN – Radial Head Replacement – LEDA

In today’s dynamic orthopaedic and trauma device marketplace, choosing the right distribution or commercial partner is a strategic decision. LEDA Orthopaedics has built a reputation as a responsive, clinically engaged, and quality‑driven UK orthopaedic distributor. For implant and device manufacturers, hospitals, clinical services, and surgical teams, partnering with LEDA can bring distinct advantages. Here are five compelling reasons to consider:

1. Clinically Informed, Consultative Approach

One of our differentiators is our emphasis on procedural knowledge, clinician engagement, and personalised advisory support rather than just transactional supply. LEDA is not a passive distributor: we aim to provide “consultative procedural knowledge and personal product advice” to our clientele.

In the orthopaedic field, where device selection, surgical technique, and intraoperative decision-making are interdependent, this consultative posture helps mitigate risk, improves adoption success, and builds trust with surgeon users. Many manufacturers struggle when distributors lack clinical depth; LEDA’s model helps bridge that gap.

2. Niche Focus, Flexibility & Responsiveness

LEDA operates as an independent, UK-based specialist orthopaedic distributor, established in 2013, with a focus on upper-limb, foot & ankle, trauma, and niche orthopaedics.

This relatively lean, focused approach confers several advantages:

• Faster responsiveness to market changes, surgeon feedback, and product innovation.
• Greater flexibility in customizing support, trialling new products, and adapting logistics to local needs.
• Closer alignment with customer needs (e.g. surgeon requests, niche specialties) rather than fitting into a one-size-fits-all national model.

Large distributors often have rigid systems, lengthy lead times, or diluted attention to smaller product lines. A specialist partner like LEDA can nurture emerging technologies and give them the attention they deserve.

3. Broad & Exclusive Distribution Portfolio

Partnering with LEDA provides access to a curated portfolio of orthopaedic and trauma technologies, some of which we hold exclusive distribution rights in the UK & Ireland:

• LEDA is the UK distributor for Skeletal Dynamics and Toby Ortho for upper-limb trauma solutions.
• We have also distribute The Standing CT Company’s HiRise scanner, enabling advanced low-radiation 3D imaging for limbs (including upper extremity capability) in addition to hips and knees.
• We act as a UK distributor for the Starr Frame® System, an external fixation device, indicating their reach into limb reconstruction and deformity correction.
• Our presence across trauma, upper-limb, foot & ankle, and imaging gives manufacturers access to multiple overlapping clinical verticals through a single partner.

For a device manufacturer, this breadth means less fragmentation of sales channels and consistency in representation across hospital specialties. For clinical customers, it means more synergy and convenience from having a trusted vendor across multiple product lines.

4. Aligned with Quality, Standards & Ethical Practice

Any credible partner in the UK orthopaedics space must align with standards of quality, transparency, and ethics. Our public profile and activities suggest we take this alignment seriously:

• Our role as an exhibitor and technology partner at BOA Congress (notably with the HiRise scanner) demonstrates our engagement with the orthopaedic professional community.
• Our consultative and clinically grounded model helps ensure the products implemented are fit for purpose, thereby supporting high-quality patient care — a priority consistent with the BOA’s mission to advance orthopaedic practice.
• Ethical collaborations matter: the BOA’s Code of Ethics stipulates that relationships between clinicians and industry must be transparent, proportionate, and free from undue influence.
• Because LEDA is comparatively smaller and more focused, there is greater clarity and accountability in each partnership, which reduces risk in meeting governance and regulatory expectations.

For manufacturers and clinicians, partnering with an entity that understands and respects the demands of audit, regulatory compliance, and conflict-of-interest transparency is a strong safeguard.

5. Growth-Oriented Partnerships & Innovation Support

We are not just a distributor; we position ourselves as partners in innovation and growth.

For example:

• LEDA has recently entered a partnership to distribute MY01’s continuous compartment pressure monitoring technology in the UK. This move demonstrates our willingness to adopt cutting-edge medical devices and support our integration into clinical practice.
• Our model includes training, procedural support, and education, which are essential for new device adoption. Manufacturers often fail when distribution is purely transactional without clinical training or support — LEDA’s model addresses that gap.
• We have shown capability to expand our distribution network. In past collaborations (e.g. with Surgical Holdings), LEDA was appointed to distribute orthopaedic sets in new regions, showing they can scale distribution responsibilities.
• Because we work across multiple specialties (upper limb, imaging, trauma), we are well placed to cross-promote and enable synergistic solutions (e.g. combining imaging + implant + fixation).

If a manufacturer or innovator wants a UK foothold, LEDA can act as a conduit for clinical trials, key opinion leader relationships, registry data collection, and surgeon engagement.

Putting It into Practice: What a Partnership with LEDA Can Achieve

To illustrate the synergy, here’s how a hypothetical collaboration might look:

1. Product Launch & Surgeon Engagement
   A manufacturer of a new mini-implant system partners with LEDA. LEDA arranges surgeon workshops, cadaver labs, and hospital adoption pilots, leveraging its clinical relationships and procedural support.
2. Logistics & Supply Chain
   LEDA coordinates inventory in UK distribution centres, ensures regulatory compliance (CE / UKCA), and optimises responsiveness to hospital demands—reducing lead times and stockouts.
3. Clinical Support & Feedback Loop
   Post-launch, LEDA collects surgeon feedback, complication or performance data, and helps refine product iterations. This feedback loop helps improve quality and clinician satisfaction.
4. Synergistic Bundling
   Because LEDA also distributes compatible imaging and orthopaedic systems (e.g. HiRise CT imaging), we may bundle product offerings or promote usage pathways (e.g. imaging + fixation).
5. Compliance & Ethical Oversight
   All interactions, training, and promotional activity follow transparent protocols, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and proportional clinical engagement—ensuring alignment with BOA’s Code of Ethics.

Over time, this approach helps build trust, drive adoption, reduce friction in procurement and clinical integration, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Summary & Invitation to Collaborate

In summary, here are the five key reasons to partner with LEDA Ortho:

1. Clinically informed, consultative approach that safeguards adoption quality
2. Niche focus, flexibility & responsiveness in a crowded distributor landscape
3. Broad, exclusive distribution reach across trauma, upper limb, fixation, and imaging
4. Alignment with quality, standards & ethical practice expected by professional bodies
5. Growth-oriented partnership & innovation support for new technologies

If your organisation is evaluating UK distribution partners, or you are seeking a more clinically engaged, responsive, and quality-aligned collaborator, LEDA Ortho presents a compelling option. Please visit our website for more information Orthopaedic distributor UK – LEDA

The carpometacarpal (CMC) joint of the thumb (also called the trapeziometacarpal joint) is highly mobile and is subjected to considerable forces during pinch, grip, and dexterous tasks. This combination makes it vulnerable to degenerative changes, overuse, trauma, and instability. When conservative measures fail to deliver adequate pain relief or function, surgical intervention becomes a consideration.

Understanding when surgery is appropriate, which surgical options exist, and what outcomes to expect is essential for both patients and clinicians. In the UK, the British Society for Surgery of the Hand (BSSH) has produced the BEST guideline on thumb base osteoarthritis, which provides structured recommendations.

Below, we review:

• The pathology, symptoms, and conservative management
• Indicators and criteria for proceeding to surgery
• The main surgical options, risks, and expected outcomes
• Key counselling points and follow-up considerations

Pathology, Symptoms & Conservative Management

Pathology & Biomechanics

The thumb CMC joint sits between the base of the first metacarpal and the trapezium bone of the wrist. It allows flexion/extension, abduction/adduction, and a degree of axial rotation (opposition). Over time, or after trauma, cartilage degeneration, subchondral sclerosis, osteophyte formation, and joint subluxation may develop, leading to osteoarthritis.

Because the joint must both bear load and allow mobility, degeneration frequently ends up producing pain, instability, and functional limitation. In more advanced cases, the joint’s alignment may shift, and secondary changes (e.g., in adjacent joints) may occur.

Clinical Presentation & Diagnosis

Typical symptoms include:

• Pain at the base of the thumb (often worse during pinch or grip activities, e.g. opening jars, turning keys)
• Tenderness on palpation of the CMC joint
• Swelling, crepitus, or bony prominence at the base of the thumb (“bossing”)
• Weakness of pinch, grip fatigue
• Loss of range of motion, stiffness
• In advanced cases, deformity (a “zigzag” thumb posture) due to metacarpophalangeal hyperextension compensating for CMC collapse

On examination, doctors often test for pain with load across the joint, “grind test” (axial compression + rotation), and assess stability. Plain radiographs are standard (AP, lateral, oblique views) to grade the severity of arthritic change, subluxation, and joint space narrowing.

Where there is ambiguity about the involvement of adjacent joints (e.g. the scaphotrapeziotrapezoidal joint, STT), further imaging may be necessary.

Conservative Management (First Line)

All patients should undergo non‑surgical management first, unless the condition is extreme.

According to the BSSH BEST guideline, a stepwise multimodal approach is recommended.  Common measures include:

• Education and activity modification (avoiding aggravating tasks)
• Analgesics / NSAIDs (or topical agents)
• Splinting / orthoses (thumb spica or CMC support) to offload the joint
• Hand therapy: strengthening of thenar muscles, joint protection techniques, exercises
• Intra‑articular corticosteroid injections for temporary relief in recalcitrant cases

According to the BSSH BEST guidance, if symptoms persist despite “a comprehensive non-invasive management package” (splinting, therapy, analgesics), then surgical options can be considered.

However, it is important to emphasise that conservative measures may not completely remove all symptoms but aim to improve pain control, maintain function, and delay or avoid surgery.

When Is Surgery the Right Option?

Moving to surgery is a significant decision. Not every patient with thumb CMC osteoarthritis is a surgical candidate, and not all surgical techniques are appropriate for everyone. The decision should balance symptom severity, functional limitation, patient expectations, comorbidities, and risk vs benefit.

Here are key indications, contraindications, and decision factors:

Indications for Surgery

1. Failure of adequate conservative therapy
   If pain, functional limitation, and reduction in quality of life persist despite a reasonable trial of nonoperative methods (often many months)
2. Daily activities severely impaired
   If tasks such as grasping, pinching, opening jars, turning keys, or personal tasks are markedly restricted, despite nonoperative measures.
3. Progressive disease and structural collapse
   Radiographic progression, subluxation, joint instability or deformity may push the balance toward surgical intervention if symptomatic.
4. Patient expectations and tolerances
   Some patients may accept residual symptoms and adaptation; others may prefer more definitive surgical correction.
5. Good surgical candidacy
   Patients who are medically fit, with realistic expectations, and able to engage with postoperative rehabilitation.

The BSSH BEST guideline suggests that if symptoms fail to resolve after non-invasive management, surgery should be considered.

Surgical Options: Techniques, Pros & Cons, Evidence

Once surgery is judged to be the right option, surgeons may choose among several techniques. The most common ones include:

1. Trapeziectomy (excision of the trapezium)
2. Trapeziectomy + Ligament Reconstruction / Tendon Interposition (LRTI)
3. Arthrodesis (fusion) of the CMC joint
4. Joint replacement / arthroplasty (total CMC prosthesis, hemiarthroplasty, or implant devices)

Each has advantages, drawbacks, and evidence.

Trapeziectomy (Simple Excision)

This is the “classic” and still most commonly used operation. It involves removing the trapezium bone to eliminate the arthritic articulation. Some surgeons may leave the gap (simple resection), while others may stabilise the thumb metacarpal using soft tissue interposition or tendon grafts.

Pros:

• Reliable pain relief in many patients
• Avoids putting a prosthesis or rigid construct
• Good long-term results in many series
• Less risk of implant-related complications (loosening, wear)

Cons:

• Potential instability or shortening of the thumb
• Loss of pinch strength compared to an ideal prosthesis
• Prolonged rehabilitation and adaptation

The BSSH BEST guideline notes that additional procedures (interposition or ligament reconstruction) do not appear to confer major benefit over simple excision (trapeziectomy alone) in their systematic evaluation.

Trapeziectomy + Ligament Reconstruction / Tendon Interposition (LRTI)

To address concerns about instability or metacarpal collapse, surgeons often pair trapeziectomy with a soft tissue procedure — e.g. using a strip of the flexor carpi radialis (FCR) tendon to reconstruct ligaments or interpose tissue in the gap (thus stabilising the thumb).

Pros:

• Additional stabilisation may better preserve pinch strength
• Less risk of metacarpal subluxation or collapse
• Many surgeons believe it yields a more stable thumb base

Cons:

• More surgical complexity
• Donor tendon morbidity
• Slightly longer recovery
• Mixed evidence on superiority over simple trapeziectomy (BSSH BEST suggests limited added benefit)

To explore differences in stability between a trapeziometacarpal prosthesis and trapeziectomy/ligamentoplasty, please see the clinical paper linked below:
Hyperextension MP.pdf

CMC Joint Fusion (Arthrodesis)

Fusion of the CMC joint is less common and is typically reserved for younger patients or in specific circumstances. By fusing the joint, pain is eliminated but mobility is sacrificed.

Pros:

• Stable, pain-free base
• May preserve grip strength better than excision in some patients

Cons:

• Loss of mobility of the CMC (no motion at that joint)
• Increased stresses on adjacent joints (e.g. MCP, wrist)
• Risk of non-union, hardware failure

Because of the mobility lost, fusion is used selectively (e.g. high demand or where implant options are not favourable).

Joint Replacement / Arthroplasty

This involves replacing the articulating surfaces with a prosthesis (either full or partial). Several designs exist: total CMC implants, hemiarthroplasty, or synthetic cartilage implants (e.g. the MAIA implant) in more recent practice.

Pros:

• Potential for better preservation of motion
• Theoretically improved function and biomechanical behaviour
• Faster return to certain tasks in some series

Cons:

• Risk of implant loosening, subsidence, failure, dislocation over time
• Revision surgery may be required
• Higher cost, greater technical demand
• Long-term durability is still under study

The MAIA implant could be an excellent option given its claimed advantages:

• Restores natural thumb movement using a dual-mobility ball-and-socket design.
• Improves pain, function, and grip/pinch strength compared with baseline (and often compared with trapeziectomy).
• Provides an anatomical fit through multiple cup, stem and neck size options.
• Offers stable long-term fixation via porous, cementless components and titanium options for metal-sensitive patients.
• Aims for faster recovery and an earlier return to hand function than traditional alternatives.

To find out more about MAIA, please visit our website: MAIA – CMCJ Replacement – LEDA.

One clinical series of cemented total trapeziometacarpal implants in advanced disease (Eaton stage III/IV) showed good outcomes at average 59 months: most patients were pain-free; average pinch strength ~85% of the unaffected side; minimal loosening in follow-up.

In the UK, when using implants like MAIA, aftercare protocols typically involve cast / splint immobilisation initially, followed by rehabilitation over weeks to months.

Trapeziectomy remains a gold standard in many UK services, partly because of its reliability and lower risk of long-term implant complications; the BEST guideline acknowledges prosthetic techniques but highlights the need for balanced decision-making.

Expected Outcomes, Risks & Counselling

Outcomes & Time Course

• Pain relief is the primary target. Most patients notice improvement within a few months; full recovery may take 6 to 12 months.
• Range of motion generally improves, but residual stiffness may persist.
• Pinch strength often recovers, though rarely to full pre‑disease levels, especially in heavier-demand tasks.
• Implant-based surgeries carry some probability of revision over time; prosthetic loosening or failure may appear years later.

Risks & Complications

Common risks to discuss include:

• Infection, wound healing problems
• Nerve irritation or injury (sensory branches near the thumb base)
• Tendon injury
• Persistent pain or lack of relief
• Implant failure, loosening, dislocation (for arthroplasty)
• Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)
• Non-union (if fusion attempted)
• Loss of joint motion (especially with fusion)
• Donor tendon morbidity (in LRTI)

Shared Decision Counselling

To help patients decide, the clinician should:

• Explain the prospects vs risks of each surgical option, in light of their age, activity level, imaging findings, and expectations
• Clarify that surgery is not guaranteed to restore full strength or eliminate all symptoms, but aims to improve pain and function
• Discuss the rehabilitation commitment and timeline (often many months)
• Review alternative strategies and risks of delaying surgery (progressive joint damage, possible worsening of symptoms)
• Emphasise the importance of selecting a surgeon experienced in thumb CMC procedures and in long‑term follow-up

Practical Algorithm: From Diagnosis to Surgical Decision

Here is a simplified decision pathway:

1. Diagnosis & grading
   • Confirm CMC joint involvement, assess radiographs (stage disease), check adjacent joint involvement.
2. Trial of nonoperative treatment (3–12 months)
   • Splints, therapy, activity modification, analgesics, injections
3. Reassess symptom severity & function
   • If acceptable, continue nonoperative care
   • If inadequate, consider surgical referral
4. Patient evaluation & counselling
   • Medical fitness, expectations, hand dominance, occupation
5. Choose appropriate surgical technique
   • For most patients, trapeziectomy (with or without LRTI)
   • In select patients, arthroplasty/fusion options
6. Surgery + postoperative care
   • Immobilisation, hand therapy, phased rehabilitation
7. Monitoring outcomes and complications
   • Radiographic follow-up, functional scores, grip/pinch strength

The BSSH BEST guideline endorses a stepwise approach, whereby surgery is reserved for those who do not respond to conservative treatment.

Summary & Recommendations

• Thumb CMC (trapeziometacarpal) osteoarthritis is common and painful, often requiring a structured management plan.
• Conservative treatments (splints, therapy, analgesics, injections) are first-line and should be given a fair trial.
• Surgery becomes an option when symptoms remain debilitating, functional limitation is significant, and imaging supports structural change.
• Among surgical options, trapeziectomy (with or without ligament reconstruction / tendon interposition) remains the mainstay in many UK practices, with a good track record of pain relief and acceptable outcomes.
• Arthroplasty / joint replacement is a promising alternative in selected patients, though long-term durability and revision risk must be weighed.
• Fusion is reserved for specific scenarios and is less favoured due to loss of motion.
• Outcomes tend to improve gradually over months; patients should be counselled about realistic expectations, recovery time, and the risk of residual limitations or complications.
• Shared decision-making, skilled surgical technique, and dedicated postoperative rehabilitation are all critical to maximise results.

The next annual meeting of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society is set to take place between 19-21 June 2024. This year sees the event return to the ancestral home of BESS, in Scotland for the first time since its first ever Scientific Meeting.  Although this time it will take place at the new venue of the P&J Live arena inside The Event Complex Aberdeen (TECA). The group from LEDA Orthopaedics are thrilled to attend.

Who are BESS?

The British Elbow & Shoulder Society (BESS) has the main goal “to promote for the public benefit the development and advancement of science and health care, in the practice of shoulder and elbow surgery by fostering education, research and clinical excellence amongst surgeons and allied health professionals”. Memberships are available to surgeons and allied health professionals (AHPs), as well as trainees in either case. Oversees practitioners may also become members and so the annual scientific meeting is an excellent networking and learning opportunity.

The organisation was officially founded in 1988 in response to the increasing interest around elbow and shoulder surgery in the UK. The original members Ian Bayley; Michael Watson; Steve Copeland; and Angus Wallace met on 28 March 1987 to discuss what was then the ‘British Shoulder Surgery Association’. It’s since this date that yearly meetings of the BESS have been held.

The motto of BESS, ‘excellence through knowledge’, is upheld by no less than five different committees. These are:

• BESS Council and Trustees.
• Finance Committee.
• Research Committee.
• Shoulder & Elbow Steering Committee.
• Education Committee, with the Instruction Course and Elbow Update Sub-Committees below it.

What to expect at this year’s BESS Scientific Meeting

The British Elbow & Shoulder Society Conference 2024 is supported by many industry partners, and LEDA are proud to be a Silver Supporter for the 2^nd consecutive year.  Our message to the delegates is clear; we are “Elbow Trauma Specialists”.  As such, attendees can expect to learn more about our innovative solutions for elbow trauma surgery on our booth, which is no. 7 this year.

The Instructional Course will take place on Wednesday, June 19^th. This is intended to focus on neurological disorders and soft tissue conditions around the elbow and shoulder. Included are a series of lectures on nerve entrapments around the elbow, shoulder neuropathy, assessing nerve injuries, rehabilitation following nerve injury and pathology, stiff elbow condition, and calcific tendonitis. The afternoon symposiums focus on ‘partial thickness tears of the anterior supraspinatus tendon’ and ‘partial & full thickness tears of distal biceps & triceps tendons’ respectively. The day then concludes with a series of debates on case studies and a final panel discussion.

The primary event of the meeting will then take place on the Thursday and Friday of that week (20^th-21^st). The former consists of three paper sessions, scheduled in between a trade exhibition, a range of masterclasses, and some industry workshops. The final day will then feature another two paper sessions, masterclasses on different areas, and guest lectures. Some examples of the topics covered include:

• Fractures of the distal clavicle and AC joint.
• Elbow arthroscopy for stiff elbow.
• Current evidence on tendon repair and nutrition.
• Proximal humerus fracture.
• Psychological factors associated with shoulder pain.
• Elbow instability.
• Sports injuries of the shoulder.
• Prostheses for radial head replacement.

With our PANTERA – Proximal Humerus Plating system, our Checkpoint Surgical nerve stimulator, and our Jake Design eXo elbow splint, many of the above topics are complimented by the range of products we will be exhibiting.

In addition to this, the Skeletal Dynamics’ range of elbow reconstruction systems will allow surgeons to better treat fractures of the elbow using both the Distal Elbow Set and the Humeral Plating System. The game-changing IJS-Elbow always inspires conversations and provides a unique way for surgeons to manage the most complex of elbow cases.

Finally, we will be launching our L3D guides for humeral and glenoid bone preparation for total shoulder replacement, powered by Insight Surgery.

You can find the full provisional programme here.

Looking for a UK medical device distributor?

LEDA Orthopaedics have been providing niche trauma implants, tailored prostheses, and surgical instrumentation for over 10 years. We supply institutions across the NHS and private sector to provide surgeons with the best equipment possible. It’s our belief that orthopaedic innovations are vital to improving patient outcomes following injuries in the upper and lower extremities, especially the elbow and shoulder. Don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, or come find us at the BESS Annual Scientific Meeting 2024.

As medical practitioners, we must do what’s best for the patient with all the skills, experience, and technology at our disposal. Where most modern internal fixation systems will not cause any discomfort for years, it is never guaranteed. Therefore, situations may arise that warrant the removal of an orthopaedic plate from the body. In order to recommend this course of action, it is necessary to make patients aware of the potential consequences. This includes the reasoning, process, and recovery time. The latter of which we shall be focusing on here.

When is orthopaedic plate removal necessary?

The removal of an orthopaedic plate for internal fixation is often only required when the plate itself is causing significant issues in the patient. This can be due to pain, discomfort, infection, allergic reaction, non-union, or other complication arising due to the individual’s biology. In these cases, the plate has served its function of stabilising the affected area bone. However, it still remains in the body.

Although the surgical procedure needed to remove the plate causes little discomfort to the patient, it is often highly skill-intensive for the surgeon. A small incision is made in the skin above the fixation site, which allows access to the hardware. Once the screws and plates have been removed from the body, any soft tissue can be repositioned and the incision can be closed. Some of the potential risks associated with plate removal surgery include:

• Refracture.
• Possibility for only partial removal.
• Nerve damage.
• Bleeding and blood clots.

Patient recovery times following orthopaedic plate removal

When considering patient recovery time from surgeries involving bone structures, practitioners must focus on bone strength. In cases of orthopaedic plate removal, it has been shown that it often takes around 6 months for patient bone strength to recover fully. In the weeks immediately following the procedure, patients will likely feel week and only notice recovery to start properly after 2-3 months. This may vary depending on what the plate was used to treat when it was initially implanted. For instance, fragment plating for a distal radius fracture or wrist plating for fractures caused by a direct impact. Here, patient recovery times can be shortened by plating systems that fit flush to patient anatomy as they reduce risks in the removal process.

Factors that can impact patient recovery times

As is the case with any invasive procedure, there can a range of patient-specific factors that can lead to longer recovery times. This includes:

• Age.
• Genetics.
• Long term conditions.
• Past surgeries and injuries.

Patient advice following surgery

Patients may understandably have a number of questions regarding what they should and shouldn’t do in the weeks following the plate removal procedure. This can cover a range of areas, such as:

• Washing – keep dressings clean and dry at all times. Bathing the wound may be permitted 2-3 weeks after the surgery, with a follow-up consultation typically taking place during this time.
• Changing dressings – using clean hands, remove the tensor bandage if one is present and then throw away the used white gauze bandages. Cover the wound with new dressing, taking care to make sure the pressure is moderate.
• Wound care – it’s normal for some fluid to ooze from the area in the first 24-48 hours after surgery. This can be cause to replace the dressing, which can be bought from most pharmacies. In between replacing the dressing, it is recommended that the area is cleaned lightly.
• Activities – recommendations will depend on the location where the surgery has been performed. For instance, lower extremity plate removal will typically need greater care. In either case, physical therapy is not usually needed.

Patients should be advised to call a healthcare professional if they experience persistent pain, swelling, fever, nausea, bleeding, or shortness of breath post-operation.

Source industry leading orthopaedic implants

The team at LEDA Orthopaedics specialise in distributing leading products for use in osteotomy surgeries and internal fixation procedures. You can regularly find us attending medical events across the UK to help share surgical knowledge and advance the field. This includes techniques and devices for the extremities, as well as niche applications. Contact us for more information about our suppliers.

A joint fusion is exactly what it sounds like – it’s a procedure that holds the two ends of bone in place at the joint and allows them to fuse together. The result is that the bones in the joint are permanently held in the same position. Joint fusions are frequently performed at small joints for a number of reasons, which we’ll be discussing in this article.

Small joint fusion procedures

Joint fusion surgery typically begins with a small incision at the back side of the joint. This is typically guided with X-rays, although L3D Osteotomy Planning can be used to great effect here as well. This technology creates 3D models of patient anatomical structures, which allows surgeons to plan procedures with absolute precision. This can be crucial in reducing risk of damage to surrounding soft tissues during orthopaedic surgeries.

Ligaments are carefully moved to either side of the joint in preparation for open reduction and internal fixation. An expert surgeon can then remove damaged pieces of bone and cartilage at the joint, allowing the bone ends to be brough together. Connective hardware is applied to hold the bones in position and allow them to fuse together. Fixation can be achieved through a combination of orthopaedic devices, such as arthrodesis screws and plates. Bone grafts may be needed to replace sections of bone before fusion, although this will depend on the condition of the bones at the joint.

Why perform small joint fusions?

One of the most common reasons to recommend a joint fusion is in patients suffering from complications due to osteoarthritis. Here, small joint fusions in particular see regular use as the condition tends to affect smaller joints that are used more often (hand and wrist). For instance, those experiencing carpometacarpal joint pain. Alongside arthritis symptoms, any disease that causes a degradation in bone stock can be a cause for joint fusions.

Oftentimes, small joint fusions are recommended once other procedures have proven ineffective for the patient. Fortunately, there are orthopaedic implants which have been specifically designed for finger joint replacements. These are the DIGITALIS MCP and DIGITALIS PIP respectively, both supplied by BRM Extremities.

Patient recovery from joint fusion

In most cases, it takes 4-6 weeks for a patient to make a full recovery from a small joint fusion. During this time, it is recommended that they apply a splint and/or strapping to the affected area to limit movement. However, recovery time may be extended by various factors relating to the patient or the kinds of activities they wish to return to. For instance, if the patient’s job involves lifting heavy objects it could best to recommend 6-8 weeks before they return to work. This helps to avoid the main complication which can arise from the procedure – bones failing to fuse. In these cases, additional surgery might be required to achieve permanent fusion. Although through the application proper fixation devices and orthopaedic expertise, this should not be necessary.

Leaders in orthopaedic solutions

At LEDA orthopaedics, we are proud to be at the forefront of patient care through providing solutions to ongoing bone conditions. We partner with distributors of orthopaedic devices, systems, and instrumentation from around the world to bring innovation and quality to the operating theatre. Contact us directly through our website to discuss how we can help advance the industry.

As medical practitioners, providing good patient experiences is just as important as securing positive outcomes. In this regard, prescribing post-operative support is among the most effective options at our disposal. It could be recommendations for physical exercises to strengthen joints, or systems that limit movement to prevent re-injury. For the latter, elbow splints see regular use in patients that are recovering from upper extremity surgery. Below are some of the common reasons why orthopaedic surgeons may find it necessary to fit a patient with an elbow splint.

Function of an elbow splint

Elbow splinting can come as either static or dynamic, depending on the range of motion it allows at the joint. A static elbow splint holds the elbow in place and does not allow for any movement. In contrast, a dynamic elbow splint allows basic bending and straightening (hinge) of the elbow. Although it can also be locked in a specific position to fully limit movement. The goal of elbow splinting is to promote healing at the elbow joint following elbow trauma and/or elbow surgery. This is accomplished by keeping the joint warm, helping increase blood flow, and controlling movement, which can prevent further injuries.

Reasons for fitting an elbow splint

There are several reasons why a patient might need to wear an elbow splint:

• Fractures: Following a fracture or break in one of the bones of the elbow (such as the radius, ulna, or humerus), a splint may be used to immobilize the elbow joint and allow the bones to heal properly.
• Strains or sprains: Injuries to the ligaments or tendons around the elbow joint, such as a sprained ligament or strained muscle, may require immobilization to reduce pain and promote healing over time.
• Tennis Elbow (Lateral Epicondylitis): This condition involves inflammation of the tendons on the outside of the elbow. A splint can help to reduce strain on these tendons and provide support during activities that aggravate the condition. This condition can also occur in patients that regularly play a range of sports, with another common example being Golf.
• Olecranon Bursitis: This is inflammation of the bursa, a fluid-filled sac that cushions the bones of the elbow. A splint can help to reduce pressure on the bursa and alleviate pain.
• Post-Surgery: After certain surgeries on the elbow, such as ligament repairs, joint replacement, or osteotomies, a splint may be used to immobilize the joint and protect the surgical site during the initial stages of healing.
• Preventative Measures: In some cases, especially for individuals who engage in repetitive activities that put strain on the elbow joint, a splint may be used as a preventative measure to reduce the risk of injury or to provide support during rehabilitation.

It’s important that healthcare professionals assess the specific condition and needs of the patient to determine whether a splint is appropriate and, if so, what type of splint would be most beneficial. Each case will likely also lead to an elbow splint being recommended for differing periods of time. Additionally, advice should be given on proper fitting and usage instructions to ensure the effectiveness of the splint.

eXo Eblow Splint

The Jake Design eXo Elbow Splint has been designed expressly to aid patients in postoperative recovery. This dynamic splint is simple to adjust, lightweight, comfortable, and washable. The eXo splint can also be used to treat those suffering from joint afflictions such as arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Access devices for quality patient care

At LEDA Orthopaedics, we are aware of the complications that can come with operating on patients with a sporting history or that are older. So while we partner with a range of suppliers for surgical implants to treat injuries such as elbow fractures, we also distribute equipment for postoperative care. Contact us for more information.

The thumb plays an essential role in hand function and when it is injured or damaged, its absence can significantly impact a person’s ability to live their normal life and complete everyday tasks. Thumb joint surgery replacement can offer patients lifechanging improvements to their hand function and symptoms they were experiencing in relation to their thumb. In this article we’ll be explaining what a thumb replacement is and how it is beneficial for patients.

What is thumb replacement surgery?

Thumb replacement or thumb joint replacement is a procedure that is commonly carried out in cases where the patient is suffering with severe arthritis or osteoarthritis. This type of surgery involves removing the arthritic joint at the base of the thumb and then replacing it with an artificial joint.

Early implants for thumb replacements were made of silicone, but as technology has progressed implants have evolved and improved. They are now made using metal such as nickel or titanium or pyrocarbon with cushioning synthetic spacers that sit between the bones.

When is thumb replacement needed?

This procedure is typically performed to ease symptoms of severe pain at the bottom of the thumb and offer better mobility in the joint. Patients are often encouraged to try other forms of treatment before surgery such as painkillers, splints, steroid injections, and activity modifications to ease their symptoms. However, in serious cases where quality of life is being affected, individuals can seek thumb replacement surgery.

Metal joint replacements are a favourable choice for older patients with arthritic symptoms and the operation is minimally intrusive. Therefore, they will probably experience faster healing and rehabilitation periods. Certain implants can be inserted without the need to remove the trapezium (a bone located at the thumb’s base), thereby preserving healthy tissue. This could enhance strength and offer alternatives for future procedures if necessary. For a CMC joint replacement to be considered, the adjacent joint must be free of arthritis and in good health, and the trapezium should be sufficiently large to accommodate the replacement.

What are the benefits of a thumb replacement?

There are several reasons why a thumb replacement would be considered as a lifechanging procedure. The main benefits of the procedure are:

Restored functionality

The thumb is essential for various types of hand function such as grasping, pinching, and manipulating objects. A successful thumb replacement can restore some of these key movements, allowing the individual to regain more independence in their daily activities.

Better dexterity

The opposable thumb is a unique human feature that enables us to be able to carry out intricate tasks. Thumb joint replacement aims to restore as much opposable function in the thumb as possible. As a result, patients will be able to better perform tasks that need precision and dexterity including writing and typing.

Improved quality of life

Pain in the thumb caused by arthritis damage or an injury can have a substantial effect on a person’s quality of life. A thumb replacement can be transformative in terms of pain relief and improving quality of life for those who have felt limited by their symptoms.

MAIA CMCJ replacement

The MAIA CMCJ replacement created by Groupe Lepine is designed for the surgical treatment of basal thumb osteoarthritis. It has many impressive features that make it a useful prosthesis for surgeons completing thumb replacement procedures. These features include:

• Dual mobility that ensures stability and reduces the risk of dislocation.
• Hemispherical trapezium cup available in 8mm, 9mm, and 10mm options with 4 pins for core stability.
• Modern, cannulated instrumentation for accurate implantation.
• Implants have a dual coating of porous titanium and hydroxyapatite for uncemented fixation.
• Titanium necks available for nickel-sensitive patients.

For more information about the MAIA CMCJ replacement contact our specialist team of orthopaedic distributors at LEDA Orthopaedics. We love hearing patient success stories from the surgical solutions we supply. See the impact a CMCJ arthroplasty can have with the MAIA replacement in our recent LinkedIn post (link to be embedded).

A fracture to the top of the upper arm bone (humerus) can have severe consequences for patients, especially those who are physically active for work or leisure. There can be a number of factors that can contribute to a fracture of the humerus. Being aware of what causes these injuries helps medical professionals deliver better lasting quality of care and improve patient experience. You can find this information further down in the post.

What is a proximal humerus fracture?

Proximal humerus fractures involve the top end of the upper arm bone. This bone runs from the should down to the elbow joint. As a result, it is crucial for many regular arm movements such as opening doors. A proximal humerus fracture can occur in many different forms, with the most common being either a simple or comminuted fracture. Although these fractures can also be classified by the shape or angle of the break, including:

• Transverse fracture.
• Buckle fracture.
• Oblique fracture.
• Segmental fracture.
• Hairline fracture.
• Spiral fracture.

For more detail on how these types of fracture differ, read ‘What’s the difference between a comminuted fracture and a transverse fracture?’.

What commonly causes humerus fracture?

There are a range of factors which can either directly or indirectly contribute to a humerus fracture. Certain causes are more likely to lead to a certain type of fracture, which in turn requires different treatment for proper healing. Knowledge of how a fracture has occurred is useful for planning an osteotomy operation.

Fall

Falling unexpectedly onto an outstretched arm, even from ground level, can result in a humerus fracture. This is a very common cause of upper extremity fracture, as our instinct is always to try and cushion our fall. Older patients or patients that regularly engage in strenuous physical activity are more likely to experience a fall which could risk fracture in the arm.

Accident or injury

An event that causes direct force or pressure to be applied to the shoulder and upper arm can result in a proximal humerus fracture. Examples include car crashes and high-impact sports injuries. The bigger the force, the larger and more complex the fracture is likely to be.

Repetitive stress

Any kind of repetitive motion that places stress on bones can make the individual more susceptible to a fracture. This is because there isn’t adequate time for the body to replace the cells. For humerus fractures, this is commonly caused by weightlifting and sports such as tennis.

Conditions

There are numerous conditions which have the side effect of weakening bones in certain parts of the body. For instance, a metabolic bone disease or bone cysts located around the scapula and upper arm.

Osteoporosis

This condition decreases bone density, resulting in weakness. Individuals with osteoporosis, especially those who have had it for an extended period of time, can suffer a fracture from even a small fall or low-impact trauma event.

Bone tumours

In rare cases, tumours on the bone itself can compromise the strength of the bone and leave it more prone to fracture. It may be necessary to treat the tumours at the same time as the fracture in order to help prevent re-fracture.

Orthopaedic products for fracture fixation

Proximal fractures of the humerus that require internal fixation and reduction must be treated with the appropriate systems. The first step in diagnosing fractures and creating a treatment plan is to investigate the injury site. The L3D Osteotomy Planning and scanning system allows for accurate mapping of internal bone structures. It then analyses the CT scan data to create virtual and physical models for pre-surgical planning. Surgeons can use these models to determine drilling locations and practice cuts ahead of time, serving as specific guides for a patient’s anatomy.

When it comes to fixing the fracture, the PANTERA Proximal Humerus Plate System is a market leading product with advanced options for cross screw fixation and the ability to achieve lesser tuberosity. Proximal humerus plate fixation using this product has been proven to be effective at anatomically reducing and stabilising the humeral head complex. The locking plate design then facilitates regular healing.

Your trusted UK orthopaedic distributor

At LEDA Orthopaedics, we understand the priorities and challenges faced in the medical sector. That’s why we’ve sought to streamline the process of acquiring products for orthopaedic surgeries by including both the system and the relevant instrumentation. This enables practitioners to deliver effective surgical treatment and high quality of care. If you have any questions regarding our elbow & shoulder products, contact LEDA and make an enquiry.

Distal radius fractures are among the most common fractures that can affect the hand and wrist. In some cases, non-operative treatments such as arm casting can be prescribed. However, in other cases the best course of action for the patient is for the fracture to be treated with surgery. This post details the surgical options available for treating those with distal radius fractures.

What can cause a fracture in the distal radius?

The most common cause of a distal radius fracture is a fall, as excessive force is placed on the wrist bones at the point of impact. It’s also possible for a fracture to occur in this area due to a sports injury or vehicle collision. The nature of the event that has caused the fracture will determine how complex it is, and at what angle the break occurs.

Surgical treatments for distal radius fractures

Owing to the skill and technology used by modern healthcare professionals, there are a number of different surgical treatments for distal radius fractures. As each can carry different contraindications and potential risks, it’s important that surgeons select the right treatment option for the patient.

Volar plating

Inserting a purpose-built orthopaedic plate with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a popular method for fracture treatment. The GEMINUS Distal Radius Volar Plate from Skeletal Dynamics has a contoured design that adheres to a range of patient anatomy. This allows the implant to achieve effective fracture reduction with minimal risk of complications with surrounding soft tissues.

For highly comminuted fractures at the distal radius, surgeons can use the COBRA Distal Radius Hemiarthroplasty prosthesis. This radial implant is intended to restore stability at the fracture site.

Dorsal plating

Surgery to implant dorsal plating follows a largely similar approach to that used for volar plating. However, this treatment is frequently used to treat complex fractures with fragment specific plates. Devices such as that included in the PROTEAN system, follows a modular design to achieve fixation of each individual bone fragment.

External fixation

This procedure involves placing pins into the bone that then extend beyond the surface of the skin. An external frame is then used to stabilise the bone and limit movement for healing. Variations of external fixation can be implemented depending on the patient’s situation. For instance, the frame fixator can extend across the wrist to keep it completely static, or it can feature a hinge to allow basic joint motion.

Orthopaedic solutions for radius fractures

LEDA Orthopaedics is a leading UK distributor supporting surgeons in providing treatment options for fractures of all kinds. We recognise that fractures are among the most common injuries that can be sustained people of all ages, especially in the upper and lower extremities. That’s why we’re partnered with leading orthopaedic suppliers from around the world. Contact us today and we’ll be happy to discuss how the needs of your facility can be met.