Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of a Standardized Severity Grading System for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury in the Endovascular Era: A Retrospective Review from a Level I Trauma Center
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Trauma Care
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/traumacare5040023
traumacare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Epidemiology of Radial Head Fractures: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

by
Narinder Kumar
1,
Joanna F. Dipnall
1,2,
Belinda Gabbe
1,
Richard S. Page
2,3,4 and
Ilana N. Ackerman
1,*
1
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia
2
IMPACT—The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
3
Barwon Centre for Orthopaedic Research and Education (BCORE), St. John of God Hospital, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
4
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geelong University Hospital, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Trauma Care 2025, 5(4), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare5040023
Submission received: 30 July 2025 / Revised: 11 September 2025 / Accepted: 28 September 2025 / Published: 6 October 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Objective: There is scarce reporting of radial head fracture epidemiology and patient characteristics beyond age and sex. This study aimed to describe demographic, socioeconomic, and injury pattern characteristics for people sustaining a radial head fracture admitted to trauma centers over a 15-year period. Methods: Analysis of Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry data was conducted to describe the demographic and case characteristics of patients with radial head fractures admitted to collaborating hospitals. Cohort and case characteristics were compared by center type (Level 1 vs. other trauma centers). Results: A total of 991 cases with a unilateral radial head fracture were recorded over 15 years, with 827 admitted to Level 1 trauma centers and 164 admitted to other centers. The mean age at time of injury was 48.7 years (SD 19.7), with male predominance (n = 621, 62.7%). Most patients resided in major cities (n = 824, 85.2%), were treated under the universal healthcare system (n = 546, 56.1%), and had no Charlson Comorbidity Index conditions (n = 738, 74.5%). A higher proportion of patients managed at Level 1 centers were male (65.7% vs. 47.6%), younger (mean 47.7 vs. 53.7 years), living in major cities (86.6% vs. 78.5%), and working prior to injury (71.3% vs. 57.1%). Over 85% of the cohort sustained concomitant injuries, with Level 1 centers receiving a higher proportion of multiple injury cases (87.8% vs. 73.2%). Elbow dislocations constituted the largest proportion of concomitant injuries (n = 257, 25.9%). Conclusions: This study has provided new insights into the demographic characteristics, comorbidity status, and associated injuries of radial head fracture populations admitted to Level 1 and other trauma centers, using long-established registry data.

1. Introduction

A radial head fracture is the most common injury around the elbow, contributing to almost one-third of injuries in this region [1]. The most frequent mode of injury is a fall on an outstretched hand with the elbow in pronation and partial flexion [2]. Although most isolated radial head fractures occur following low-energy trauma (such as falls), the complexity of these fractures varies, both in the type of radial head fracture and also in terms of concomitant injuries, especially in high-energy trauma situations. Admission to hospital can be required for the management of radial head fractures and/or concomitant injuries. While undisplaced and stable partially displaced radial head fractures can be managed non-surgically with good outcomes without requiring hospital admission, displaced comminuted fractures require hospital admission and surgical management in most cases [3]. Displaced comminuted radial head fractures are commonly managed by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), excision of the radial head, or radial head arthroplasty [4,5].
Few studies have reported on demographic, socioeconomic, or injury trends for this type of injury [1]. Recent studies involving large cohorts from Germany and the Netherlands have reported limited demographic details, with a focus on the age and sex distribution of people sustaining a radial head fracture [1,6]. A greater understanding of patient profiles is required for people admitted with radial head fractures to support service planning. In particular, an improved understanding of the broader demographic and clinical characteristics of people admitted to trauma centers after sustaining a radial head fracture, as well as the most frequent causes of injury and patterns of concomitant injuries, is needed. This level of detail could facilitate multidisciplinary care planning, particularly where multiple injuries are sustained or where comorbidities and socioeconomic factors need to be considered.
Understanding the differences in demographics and injury patterns by level of care may enable the further strengthening of health service planning at trauma centers, including appropriate resourcing. Using data from a longstanding, multi-center orthopedic trauma registry, the aim of this study was to examine the demographic, socioeconomic, and case characteristics of people sustaining radial head fractures who were admitted to trauma centers over a 15-year period in the state of Victoria, Australia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A registry-based cohort study was undertaken using data from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR), a multi-center trauma registry in Victoria, Australia [7]. This study is reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [8].

2.2. Ethics Approval

The VOTOR has ethics approval from the Department of Health and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing Human Research Ethics Committee (#78938). Ethics approval for this research study was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee with Project ID #32865 on 30 June 2022. Individual consent was not required for this study as only anonymized data were used.

2.3. Data Sources

VOTOR is a sentinel site orthopedic trauma registry aimed at monitoring orthopedic trauma management and outcomes, identifying clinical practice variations, and identifying specific injuries, procedures, implants, and patient populations at risk of poorer outcomes. The data collected include pre-injury function, health, and employment, injury circumstances and characteristics, diagnosis, treatment information, and clinical outcomes, as well as patient-reported outcomes for trauma-related admissions to four large Victorian public hospitals. The hospitals include two Level 1 inner metropolitan trauma centers (The Alfred and Royal Melbourne Hospital), one regional trauma center (University Hospital Geelong), and an outer metropolitan trauma center (initially The Northern Hospital; more recently, Box Hill Hospital). Level 1 trauma centers are comprehensive tertiary care facilities capable of providing the full spectrum of care for the most critically injured patient from initial reception and resuscitation through to discharge and rehabilitation. All patients with a hospital stay greater than 24 h following orthopedic trauma are included in VOTOR. Patients with pathological fractures or isolated soft tissue injuries are excluded. Participants are included using an opt-out method, and the opt-out rate is less than 1%.
The registry collects the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition, Australian Modification (ICD-10 AM) and Australian Classification of Health Interventions (ACHI) codes for diagnoses and procedures, respectively. For this study, a VOTOR database search was performed to identify and extract data for patients 18 years and older with an ICD-10-AM code of S52.11 (radial head fracture). Patients with a date of admission from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2022 were included. Patients with isolated radial neck fractures were excluded, as were cases with undefined fractures of the proximal radius.
Available data extracted from VOTOR for this study included patient characteristics and injury details. The Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) divides Australia into five classes of remoteness, which are characterized by a measure of relative geographic access to services: Major Cities of Australia, Inner Regional Australia, Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia, and Very Remote Australia [9]. The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) was used to describe socioeconomic circumstances, based on residential postcodes; the lowest quintile indicates the most disadvantaged neighborhoods and the highest quintile indicates the most advantaged neighborhoods [10]. Patient age was stratified into four categories (≤30, 31–50, 51–70, and ≥71 years). The ICD-10-AM codes were mapped to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to describe comorbid conditions; zero corresponded to no CCI comorbidities, 1 corresponded to at least one condition with a weight of one, and >1 corresponded to at least one condition with a weight >1 [11]. The fund source for the admission was categorized as Transport Accident Commission (TAC, a third-party, no-fault insurer for land transport injuries), WorkSafe (a third-party, no-fault insurer for work-related injuries), or other compensable insurance, private health insurance, Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA), or universal health care (Medicare).

2.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis was used to examine demographic and case characteristics for the overall cohort, as well as for different levels of trauma centers (Level 1 or other trauma centers). Chi-square tests and independent t-tests were used, as appropriate, to compare demographic and case characteristics at Level 1 trauma centers vs. other centers. Bonferroni adjusted standardized residuals were used to compare differences across the trauma centers, with the α = 0.05 Bonferroni adjusted according to the cell size to identify statistical significance [12]. All analyses were conducted in the Monash Secure eResearch Platform (SeRP) using Stata (version 18, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Monash SeRP is a secure online environment for research data sharing and analysis, with oversight by the data custodian.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Cohort

A total of 991 cases with radial head fractures were registered on VOTOR in the study period. Of these, 827 were admitted to Level 1 trauma centers, and 164 were admitted to other trauma centers. The characteristics of these patients are summarized in Table 1. Overall, the mean age of patients at the time of injury was 48.7 years (SD 19.7), with a higher proportion of patients aged over 70 years of age admitted to other trauma centers compared to Level 1 centers (26.8% vs. 13.7%). Males were more commonly affected (n = 621, 62.7%), and a higher proportion of women were admitted with radial head fractures at other trauma centers compared to Level 1 centers (52.4% vs. 34.3%). The majority of patients (n = 487, 58.7%) had a post-secondary level of education (university degree or diploma).
Most patients (n = 824, 85.2%) resided in major Australian cities. While the cohort showed diversity in socioeconomic status, 38.5% (n = 372) were from the least disadvantaged areas (IRSAD score of 5). However, this proportion was driven by patients admitted to Level 1 trauma centers compared to other trauma centers (41.9% vs. 21.5%). A higher proportion of the most disadvantaged patients were admitted to other trauma centers compared to Level 1 centers (22.1% vs. 11.3%).
Fifty-six percent of the cohort (n = 546) were treated under the publicly funded Medicare program. However, the proportion of patients funded by the TAC was higher for Level 1 centers compared to other trauma centers (24.0% vs. 5.5%). Most patients were working prior to injury, with 31% of the cohort (n = 184) classified as having professional occupations. Overall, three-quarters of the cohort (n = 738) had no comorbidities according to the CCI.

3.2. Case Characteristics

Table 2 summarizes the cause of injury and activity undertaken at the time of sustaining the radial head fracture. The most common causes of admission to hospital involving a radial head fracture were low or high falls (n = 559, 56.4%) and cycling (n = 160, 16.1%). A substantial proportion of radial head fractures were sustained during sports and leisure activities (n = 208, 35.1%). There were differences in the cause of injury and injury activity between patients treated at Level 1 trauma centers vs. other trauma centers. Patients at Level 1 trauma centers were more frequently involved in motorcycle, bicycle, and other road-related causes of injury, but the main difference was evident in the proportion of patients at other trauma centers, most of whom sustained radial head fractures through low falls, compared to the Level 1 centers (61.6% vs. 28.9%). Patients at Level 1 trauma centers less commonly sustained a radial head fracture via leisure activities, compared to those at the other trauma centers (11.9% vs. 33.0%).

3.3. Concomitant Injuries

More than 85% of the overall cohort sustained concomitant injuries. Elbow dislocations constituted the largest proportion of associated injuries (n = 257, 25.9%), followed by shoulder girdle and arm injuries (n = 167, 16.8%) and head injuries (n = 163, 16.4%). Isolated radial head fractures were proportionately higher at other centers compared to Level 1 centers (26.8% vs. 12.2%). Figure 1 shows the distribution of concurrent injuries, stratified by type of trauma center. Across the range of concurrent injuries, all were more frequently observed for patients treated at Level 1 centers compared to patients treated at other centers. This discrepancy was most notable for head injuries (18.5% vs. 6.1% for other centers), shoulder girdle and arm injuries (18.2% vs. 10.3%), chest injuries (11.4% vs. 0.0%), and hand and wrist injuries (10.6% vs. 2.4%).

4. Discussion

This study examined data from a multi-center orthopedic trauma sentinel registry to describe the demographic, socioeconomic, and case characteristics of people admitted with radial head fractures, with or without concomitant injuries, over a 15-year period in Australia. Overall, the radial head fracture cohort was relatively young, predominantly male, healthy, working prior to their injury, and residing in major cities. The data highlight that radial head fractures in patients admitted to trauma centers are commonly accompanied by concurrent injuries (most notably for patients admitted to Level 1 trauma centers), including complex concomitant elbow injuries and head, trunk, other upper limb, and lower limb injuries. Our data also support opportunities for injury prevention, with most radial head fractures occurring as a result of falls or cycling, and over one-third of fractures being sustained during sports or leisure activity participation.
This study explored a broad range of demographic characteristics beyond age and gender, enabling a more complete understanding of this patient population. The mean age of the cohort was 48.7 years, which broadly corresponds to data from previously published studies [6,13]. Although the literature reports a highly variable male–female ratio, ranging between 1:1 to 3:2 with a generally higher incidence of radial fractures among females [1,6,14,15,16], males were more commonly affected in our study population. This likely reflects our multi-trauma population (most commonly younger males), who were admitted to the Level 1 trauma centers, including for the management of other injuries aside from radial head fractures. Our data also revealed a largely healthy patient population, with three-quarters of the cohort having no significant medical comorbidity as determined by the CCI. Prior studies involving cohorts with radial head fractures have used a range of different data sources, including a national inpatient database [1], emergency department presentations [6], and institutional databases [14,16], and therefore cannot be directly compared with our cohort.
This study is the first to describe the incidence and patterns of concurrent injuries affecting other body areas alongside radial head fractures. Elbow dislocations were the most common concurrent injury, followed by shoulder girdle and arm injuries and head injuries. Concurrent elbow dislocations plus other upper limb injuries represent complex injury patterns that are likely to require hospital admission and surgical intervention, as opposed to isolated radial head fractures that can be managed non-surgically in the emergency department. The injury patterns identified in our study provide important information for clinicians and health services who manage multi-trauma patients. There is a need for greater awareness of radial head fractures in a multi-trauma context, particularly as these fractures may be missed when the patient is unconscious or has another injury requiring urgent management. Most notably, there is a need to recognize when a radial head fracture is displaced or unstable and when appropriate surgical expertise is necessary to manage these complex injuries. While ICD-10-AM codes do not report laterality, the relatively high incidence of concurrent elbow dislocations among our cohort suggests that a substantial proportion of radial head fractures were part of the ‘terrible triad’ of elbow injuries [17,18], requiring advanced upper limb trauma skills to manage these injuries at the time of primary surgery.
We are not aware of other studies that have evaluated differences in demographic or case characteristics for patients treated at different levels of post-injury trauma care. The most common activity at the time of injury for patients at Level 1 trauma centers was road-related, such as motorcycle and bicycle riding, whereas low falls were the most frequent activity for radial head fractures in other centers. Similarly, a greater number of patients with concomitant injuries were treated at Level 1 trauma centers, highlighting the requirement for higher-level post-injury care in patients with multiple injuries. Patients at Level 1 trauma centers were more frequently involved in high-energy trauma activities, such as motorcycle, bicycle, and other road-related mechanisms of injury, while patients managed at other trauma centers most frequently sustained radial head fractures through low-energy trauma activities such as falls. As high-energy trauma is more likely to cause associated injuries, this likely explains the predominance of Level 1 trauma care for patients sustaining a radial head fracture. However, unlike our study, Kodde et al. [19] reported that there was no significant relationship between the trauma mechanism and the risk of associated injuries in patients presenting with radial head fractures to the emergency department of one hospital in the Netherlands. These contrasting findings may relate to differences in study populations. The study by Kodde et al. [19] only considered ipsilateral upper limb injuries, whereas our study considered injuries to any part of the body. Further, only a relatively small proportion of the Dutch cohort (11%) had an associated injury.

4.1. Strengths

This study analyzed a breadth of demographic and socioeconomic data, along with clinical data on comorbidities and associated injuries, helping to characterize the radial head fracture population admitted to trauma centers. Registry data were collected for all trauma-related admissions from multiple hospital sites over a 15-year period, with long-established processes for data collection and completeness.

4.2. Limitations

This study also had limitations, which should be acknowledged. Firstly, this study represents a subset of all radial head fracture cases, as VOTOR only includes patients admitted to hospital for 24 h or more and excludes patients treated on an outpatient basis (for example, those without concomitant injuries who receive non-surgical fracture management). This likely underestimates the incidence of radial head fractures in the community and likely excludes patients with injuries of a lesser severity. Secondly, although VOTOR records a wide range of injuries and their outcomes, data on laterality are not available, precluding the reporting of ipsilateral versus contralateral upper limb injuries. Thirdly, it is not possible to determine the classification or severity of the radial head fracture, as the available data are limited by ICD-10-AM coding. In the absence of this information, future analyses will focus on the use of non-surgical versus surgical management, which may help to categorize fracture complexity.

5. Conclusions

This study provides comprehensive information on demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, comorbidity status, and associated injuries for a large patient cohort with radial head fractures who were admitted to Level 1 and other trauma centers. This analysis of trauma registry data from a 15-year period demonstrated that radial head fractures were frequently observed within multi-trauma presentations, particularly for males of middle age. Isolated radial head fractures were relatively uncommon, most notably for patients admitted to Level 1 trauma centers. As Level 1 centers receive more complex injuries, often due to high-energy trauma, their clinical caseload includes a higher number of concomitant injuries sustained alongside radial head fractures, with implications for holistic patient management. By better understanding the cohort characteristics, these data can help support care and discharge planning in view of the relatively young and healthy patient population from predominantly metropolitan areas. Furthermore, this study also highlights opportunities for injury prevention, with most radial head fractures occurring as a result of falls or cycling, and over one-third of fractures being sustained during sports or leisure activity participation.

Author Contributions

Study conception and design: N.K., B.G., R.S.P., J.F.D., and I.N.A.; data acquisition: N.K., B.G., R.S.P., and J.F.D.; data analysis and data interpretation: N.K., B.G., J.F.D., and I.N.A.; drafting the article: N.K., B.G., J.F.D., and I.N.A.; critical revision of the article: N.K., B.G., R.S.P., B.G., J.F.D., and I.N.A.; final approval of the article: N.K., B.G., R.S.P., J.F.D., and I.N.A.; I.N.A. takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry is funded by the Transport Accident Commission. Dr Narinder Kumar is supported by a Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship from the Australian Government. Prof Belinda Gabbe was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (Level 2, #200998) during the preparation of this manuscript. These funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval for this research study was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (#32865, date of approval 30 June 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Individual consent was not required for this study as only anonymised data were used.

Data Availability Statement

The analysis code is available from the authors upon request. However, VOTOR data are available for research with the appropriate ethics and data custodian approvals.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) Steering Committee for providing the data used for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Klug, A.; Gramlich, Y.; Wincheringer, D.; Hoffmann, R.; Schmidt-Horlohe, K. Epidemiology and Treatment of Radial Head Fractures: A Database Analysis of Over 70,000 Inpatient Cases. J. Hand Surg. 2021, 46, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. van Riet, R.P.; van den Bekerom, M.; Van Tongel, A.; Spross, C.; Barco, R.; Watts, A.C. Radial head fractures. Shoulder Elbow 2020, 12, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Swensen, S.J.; Tyagi, V.; Uquillas, C.; Shakked, R.J.; Yoon, R.S.; Liporace, F.A. Maximizing outcomes in the treatment of radial head fractures. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2019, 20, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumar, N.; Gabbe, B.J.; Page, R.S.; Soh, S.-E.; Gill, D.R.J.; Harries, D.; Ackerman, I.N. Demographics, Indications, and Revision Rates for Radial Head Arthroplasty: Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2024, 106, 2085–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ring, D. Radial head fracture: Open reduction-internal fixation or prosthetic replacement. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011, 20 (Suppl. 2), S107–S112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaas, L.; van Riet, R.P.; Vroemen, J.P.A.M.; Eygendaal, D. The epidemiology of radial head fractures. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010, 19, 520–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Edwards, E.R.; Graves, S.E.; McNeil, J.J.; Williamson, O.D.; Urquhart, D.M.; Cicuttini, F.M. Orthopaedic trauma: Establishment of an outcomes registry to evaluate and monitor treatment effectiveness. Injury 2006, 37, 95–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007, 370, 1453–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Remoteness Structure ACT Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2021. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/remoteness-structure (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  10. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia. 2011. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2033.0.55.001main+features100042011 (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  11. Gabbe, B.J.; Magtengaard, K.; Hannaford, A.P.; Cameron, P.A. Is the Charlson Comorbidity Index useful for predicting trauma outcomes? Acad. Emerg. Med. 2005, 12, 318–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Sharpe, D. Chi-Square Test Is Statistically Significant: Now What? Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2015, 20, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Morrey, B.F. Radial head fracture. In The Elbow and Its Disorders; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 341–364. [Google Scholar]
  14. van Riet, R.P.; Morrey, B.F.; O’Driscoll, S.W.; Van Glabbeek, F. Associated injuries complicating radial head fractures: A demographic study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2005, 441, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Davidson, P.A.; Moseley, J.B., Jr.; Tullos, H.S. Radial head fracture. A potentially complex injury. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1993, 297, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mason, M.L. Some observations on fractures of the head of the radius with a review of one hundred cases. Br. J. Surg. 1954, 42, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hotchkiss, R.N. Displaced Fractures of the Radial Head: Internal Fixation or Excision? J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 1997, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ohl, X.; Siboni, R. Surgical treatment of terrible triad of the elbow. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 107, 102784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kodde, I.F.; Kaas, L.; van Es, N.; Mulder, P.G.; van Dijk, C.N.; Eygendaal, D. The effect of trauma and patient related factors on radial head fractures and associated injuries in 440 patients. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2015, 16, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Traumacare 05 00023 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of concurrent injuries, stratified by type of trauma center.
Figure 1. Distribution of concurrent injuries, stratified by type of trauma center.
Traumacare 05 00023 g001
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of patients with radial head fractures.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of patients with radial head fractures.
Demographic ParameterLevel 1 Trauma
Centers		Other Trauma CentersTotalp-Value †
N = 827 N = 164 N = 991
Sex <0.001
  Male543 (65.7%)78 (47.6%)621 (62.7%)
  Female284 (34.3%)86 (52.4%)370 (37.3%)
Mean age in years (SD)47.7 (19.3)53.7 (20.8)48.7 (19.7)<0.001
Age group <0.001
  ≤30 years206 (24.9%)26 (15.9%)232 (23.4%)
  31–50 years261 (31.6%)47 (28.7%)308 (31.1%)
  51–70 years247 (29.9%)47 (28.7%)294 (29.7%)
  >70 years113 (13.7%)44 (26.8%)157 (15.8%)
Preferred language (Missing = 140) 0.020
  English667 (97.1%)153 (93.3%)820 (96.4%)
  Non-English20 (2.9%)11 (6.7%)31 (3.6%)
Education level (Missing = 162) 0.039
  University253 (36.2%)33 (25.4%)286 (34.5%)
  Diploma165 (23.6%)36 (27.7%)201 (24.2%)
  Completed high school107 (15.3%)17 (13.1%)124 (15.0%)
  Other174 (24.9%)44 (33.8%)218 (26.3%)
Accessibility * (Missing = 24) <0.001
  Major cities of Australia696 (86.6%)128 (78.5%)824 (85.2%)
  Inner regional Australia90 (11.2%)35 (21.5%)125 (12.9%)
  Outer regional Australia18 (2.2%)0 (0.0%)18 (1.9%)
Socioeconomic status ^ (Missing = 24) <0.001
  1 (Most disadvantaged)91 (11.3%)36 (22.1%)127 (13.1%)
  299 (12.3%)25 (15.3%)124 (12.8%)
  3117 (14.6%)27 (16.6%)144 (14.9%)
  4160 (19.9%)40 (24.5%)200 (20.7%)
  5 (Least disadvantaged)337 (41.9%)35 (21.5%)372 (38.5%)
Compensable status (Missing = 18) <0.001
  TAC194 (24.0%)9 (5.5%)203 (20.9%)
  Worksafe47 (5.8%)10 (6.1%)57 (5.9%)
  Medicare/overseas eligible432 (53.4%)114 (69.5%)546 (56.1%)
  Private126 (15.6%)25 (15.2%)151 (15.5%)
  Others/ineligible10 (1.2%)6 (3.7%)16 (1.6%)
Working status prior to injury (Missing = 124) <0.001
  No209 (28.7%)60 (42.9%)269 (31.0%)
  Yes518 (71.3%)80 (57.1%)598 (69.0%)
Occupation group (Missing = 397) 0.56
  Managers and Administrators61 (11.8%)9 (11.5%)70 (11.8%)
  Professionals167 (32.4%)17 (21.8%)184 (31.0%)
  Trades Persons88 (17.1%)18 (23.1%)106 (17.8%)
  Clerical/Sales/Service Workers74 (14.3%)12 (15.4%)86 (14.5%)
  Intermediate Transport and Production Workers42 (8.1%)8 (10.3%)50 (8.4%)
  Labour and Related Workers18 (3.5%)5 (6.4%)23 (3.9%)
  Students40 (7.8%)7 (9.0%)47 (7.9%)
  Others26 (5%)2 (2.6%)28 (4.8%)
Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 0.019
  None630 (76.2%)108 (65.9%)738 (74.5%)
  CCI = 1147 (17.8%)40 (24.4%)187 (18.9%)
  CCI > 150 (6.0%)16 (9.8%)66 (6.7%)
Isolated <0.001
  No726 (87.8%)120 (73.2%)846 (85.4%)
  Yes101 (12.2%)44 (26.8%)145 (14.6%)
* Based on the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA); ^ Based on the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD); † A bold p-value indicates statistical significance after Bonferroni adjustment (p < 0.05). Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Table 2. Cause of injury and activity at time of injury.
Table 2. Cause of injury and activity at time of injury.
Level 1 Trauma CentersOther Trauma CentersTotalp-Value †
N = 827N = 164N = 991
Cause of injury <0.001
  Motorcycle95 (11.5%)11 (6.7%)106 (10.7%)
  Pedal cyclist147 (17.8%)13 (7.9%)160 (16.1%)
  Low fall239 (28.9%)101 (61.6%)340 (34.3%)
  High fall188 (22.7%)31 (18.9%)219 (22.1%)
  Other road users *94 (11.4%)3 (1.8%)97 (9.8%)
  Struck by/with person/object/Other64 (7.7%)5 (3%)69 (6.9%)
Activity ^ <0.001
  Sports94 (19.2%)22 (21.4%)116 (19.6%)
  Leisure58 (11.9%)34 (33.0%)92 (15.5%)
  Working for income80 (16.4%)14 (13.6%)94 (15.9%)
  Other work (unpaid)43 (8.8%)14 (13.6%)57 (9.6%)
  Personal #17 (3.5%)5 (4.9%)22 (3.7%)
  Other 197 (40.3%)14 (13.6%)211 (35.6%)
* Includes motor vehicles and pedestrians; ^ Activity data were missing for N = 399; # Includes resting, sleeping, eating, or any other personal activity; † A bold p-value indicates statistical significance after Bonferroni adjustment (p < 0.05). Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kumar, N.; Dipnall, J.F.; Gabbe, B.; Page, R.S.; Ackerman, I.N. The Epidemiology of Radial Head Fractures: A Registry-Based Cohort Study. Trauma Care 2025, 5, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare5040023

AMA Style

Kumar N, Dipnall JF, Gabbe B, Page RS, Ackerman IN. The Epidemiology of Radial Head Fractures: A Registry-Based Cohort Study. Trauma Care. 2025; 5(4):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare5040023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumar, Narinder, Joanna F. Dipnall, Belinda Gabbe, Richard S. Page, and Ilana N. Ackerman. 2025. "The Epidemiology of Radial Head Fractures: A Registry-Based Cohort Study" Trauma Care 5, no. 4: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare5040023

APA Style

Kumar, N., Dipnall, J. F., Gabbe, B., Page, R. S., & Ackerman, I. N. (2025). The Epidemiology of Radial Head Fractures: A Registry-Based Cohort Study. Trauma Care, 5(4), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare5040023

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop