Review Article

Congenital Radial Head Dislocation: A Narrative Review of Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

101 views

⸱

DOI:

10.3791/72106

⸱

August 14th, 2026

 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 
1Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, 2Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3Center of Excellence on Mood Disorders, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth)

* These authors contributed equally

In This Article

Summary

Congenital radial head dislocation (CRHD) is a recognized congenital anomaly of the elbow that may present late due to subtle symptoms and diagnostic challenges. Diagnosis relies on clinical and imaging findings, while treatment ranges from observation to surgery, depending on symptoms and functional impairment.

Abstract

Congenital radial head dislocation (CRHD) is an uncommon orthopedic anomaly affecting the elbow joint and is frequently associated with other congenital deformities. This narrative review synthesizes evidence identified through targeted searches of PubMed and Web of Science, with emphasis on peer-reviewed studies addressing the epidemiology, developmental and genetic mechanisms, diagnostic evaluation, clinical differentiation, management strategies, and treatment outcomes of CRHD. CRHD may present as either unilateral or bilateral dislocation, with posterior dislocation being the most frequently reported subtype. Frequently overlooked during childhood, CRHD often becomes clinically apparent during adolescence or adulthood through symptoms such as elbow discomfort, cosmetic prominence, mechanical symptoms, and restricted joint mobility. Diagnosis remains challenging because of its variable clinical presentation and often requires careful integration of clinical history, physical examination, and imaging findings. The pathogenesis of CRHD is multifactorial and involves complex genetic, developmental, and structural abnormalities, particularly collagen type I defects, disturbances in endochondral ossification, and disproportionate growth between the ulna and radius. Management strategies range from conservative observation in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients to surgical interventions, including radial head excision, ulnar osteotomy, open reduction, and annular ligament reconstruction in selected symptomatic cases. Although surgery may provide pain relief and improve forearm rotation, it carries potential complications, including wrist pain, recurrent deformity, and redislocation. Further research is needed to refine diagnostic criteria, optimize patient selection for surgery, and improve long-term functional outcomes in patients with CRHD.

Introduction

Radial head dislocation is an uncommon condition that may be congenital or acquired. Acquired dislocations are most frequently associated with trauma, particularly neglected or chronic Monteggia fracture-dislocations. In contrast, congenital radial head dislocation (CRHD) is a rare developmental abnormality and represents the most common congenital disorder of the elbow joint. Despite its rarity, CRHD remains an important diagnostic consideration because it is often overlooked during childhood and may not be recognized until adolescence or adulthood1. CRHD may occur as an isolated anomaly or in association with various congenital syndromes and musculoskeletal disorders, including Klippel–Feil syndrome, nail–patella syndrome, and other skeletal abnormalities. The condition can affect one or both elbows, with bilateral involvement being more common. Although the exact etiology remains unclear, CRHD is believed to result from abnormal development of the radiocapitellar joint during embryogenesis, leading to progressive osseous remodeling and malalignment of the proximal forearm2,3,4.

The natural history of CRHD managed nonoperatively is characterized by a prolonged period of clinical latency during childhood, followed by progressive, age-dependent structural and functional adaptation. In pediatric cohorts, the condition is typically asymptomatic and frequently detected as an incidental finding or due to a noticeable cosmetic prominence of the elbow. Early functional outcomes and quality of life remain high, as compensatory hypermobility of the ipsilateral wrist and shoulder effectively mitigates mild deficits in terminal elbow extension and forearm rotation, predominantly supination5. As patients transition into late adolescence and adulthood, altered joint kinematics and chronic mechanical misalignment inevitably precipitate progressive degenerative changes. These include hypoplasia of the capitellum, dome-shaped deformation of the radial head, and advanced osteochondral deterioration. Consequently, adult patients frequently develop activity-related pain, mechanical snapping, or crepitus secondary to osteoarthritis. While these degenerative alterations rarely impose severe restrictions on daily activities, they can result in subtle occupational limitations, particularly in professions demanding repetitive forearm rotation or heavy manual labor. Nonetheless, because late surgical interventions (such as radial head excision) primarily address pain rather than restoring lost range of motion, nonoperative management remains the benchmark strategy for patients maintaining functional, pain-free upper extremities2,3,4 (Figure 1A–B).

Based on the direction of displacement, CRHD may be classified as anterior, posterior, or lateral, with posterior dislocation representing the most commonly reported subtype. Historically, unilateral radial head dislocation was often considered traumatic in origin, whereas bilateral involvement was regarded as suggestive of a congenital etiology6,7. Anterior dislocation is more noteworthy but less frequent, as symptoms such as pain and restricted range of motion are present. A study explored the association between the range of motion and dislocation type and reported that posterior dislocations had the least impact, whereas anterior dislocations were the most significantly affected8. Additionally, an investigation on CRHD in children revealed that the supination and pronation of children diagnosed with anterior dislocation were greatly limited in comparison to those of children with posterior and lateral dislocation9. The final type of CRHD mentioned above is lateral dislocation. This type of dislocation is rare, as evidenced by one review finding that only 17% of CRHD cases involved lateral dislocation, whereas 65% involved posterior dislocation10. These classifications are key to developing comprehensive diagnostic and management strategies to address the specific limitations of each circumstance.

Given the rarity and clinical complexity of CRHD, this review summarizes the current understanding of its epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetic basis, diagnostic evaluation, and management. We further examine the outcomes of contemporary treatment strategies, discuss the principal diagnostic challenges, and identify key knowledge gaps and future research directions. By consolidating available evidence, this review aims to provide clinicians and researchers with a practical, comprehensive reference for the diagnosis and management of CRHD.

Review and Perspective

Epidemiological research and pathogenesis

CRHD is a rare orthopedic condition that can manifest unilaterally or bilaterally and has an estimated incidence of 0.06% to 0.16%11,12. For new patients who visited Alfred I. duPont Institute, the incidence of CRHD was 0.15%, with 27 of the 50 total affected individuals having bilateral dislocation, meaning that a total of 77 elbows were affected by CRHD10. Among the other 23 unilateral cases, 11 were on the right, whereas 12 were on the left10. Although CRHD is relatively uncommon, these findings highlight its clinical relevance, as the condition can exert a substantial functional impact on affected individuals6,7,13.

Moreover, with the epiphyseal center of the humerus and radial head being immature, the ossification process is not fully complete until approximately 5 years of age14. Hence, it is difficult to use any of the typical diagnostic techniques to obtain an accurate diagnosis. Demographic variations (age, sex, and ethnicity) exist in terms of the epidemiology of CRHD. However, depending on the classification, age at diagnosis can vary significantly, ranging from infancy to 18 years, with an average age at diagnosis of approximately 6 years10. The wide age range demonstrates the uncertainty that arises when encountering new potential patients, as the key symptoms and characteristics of CRHD become clearer as the affected individual ages. Additionally, there are sex disparities in the prevalence of CRHD, as shown by the study by Mardam-Bey with 50 patients10. The review revealed little female predominance, with 29 females and 21 males. However, other studies have generally revealed a more evenly distributed sex distribution in the affected population, suggesting that CRHD does not necessarily favor sex and that this distribution mostly depends on the population and sample size of the study15,16.

To understand the overall epidemiology of CRHD, one also needs to investigate the role that genetic factors play in the overall picture. Research with a focus on the genetic aspects of CRHD provided us with a new understanding of the overall impact of inheritance patterns and genetic mutations on CRHD epidemiology6. A possible association between 6p25.3 deletion syndrome and CRHD has been reported. In a patient with a 1.9 Mb deletion at chromosome 6p25.3, bilateral CRHD was diagnosed at 6 months of age alongside features including hearing loss, global developmental delay, and anterior segment ocular abnormalities8. While this case suggests that CRHD may be part of the phenotypic spectrum of 6p25.3 deletion syndrome, it does not establish a causal relationship. Long-term follow-up also identified additional manifestations, including abnormal dentition, gynecological abnormalities, and persistently low IgM levels8.

Additionally, connective tissue disorders associated with collagen abnormalities, such as Shprintzen-Goldberg syndrome, Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, are also implicated in CRHD because of generalized joint laxity and compromised structural integrity of the annular ligament16. Another important mechanism implicated in the development of CRHD involves disturbances in endochondral ossification and growth plate development. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling plays a critical role in regulating chondrocyte proliferation, differentiation, and maturation during long-bone growth. Mutations in FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3, which are associated with several skeletal dysplasia syndromes, including Apert syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome, and achondroplasia, disrupt normal chondrocyte maturation and impair endochondral ossification. Such developmental abnormalities may affect the morphology and alignment of the radiocapitellar joint, predisposing individuals to congenital or developmental radial head dislocation17,18,19. Errors in other key signaling pathways involved in endochondral ossification, such as the WNT signaling pathway, also contribute to CRHD. Mutations in genes such as LMX1B (nail-patella syndrome) and FLNA (oto-palato-digital syndrome) affect the WNT pathway, resulting in skeletal anomalies, including radial head dislocation20,21,22,23. Disproportionate growth between the ulna and radius is another mechanism contributing to CRHD. Syndromes such as Holt-Oram and Rothmund-Thomson, which are characterized by radial ray deficiencies, frequently exhibit CRHD as a clinical feature. Mutations in the TBX5 gene with gain-of-function effects, as observed in atypical Holt-Oram syndrome, result in excessive radial growth. This abnormal growth disrupts the alignment between the radial head and the capitellum, ultimately causing dislocation24,25,26.

Furthermore, HOX genes, a subset of homeobox genes, are crucial for the development of the vertebrate axial skeleton, central nervous system, and, most prominently, limbs27. This is particularly evident in the roles of Hoxs A and D, which are essential for the proper formation of the upper limb. The segmentation of distinct regions along the proximal-distal axis is governed by the sequential activation of HOX genes during the early stages of embryonic development27. Specifically, the HOX D1-3 genes are expressed in the anterior (radial) mesoderm, following a pattern often described as "Russian dolls”16,28. This pattern of expression is critical for proper limb development in CRHD, and other limb abnormalities have been associated with changes in HOX D genes. For example, CRHD is a crucial clinical characteristic of the disease known as Kantaputra Mesomelic Dysplasia (KMD)9,29. Short stature, shortening of the ulna and radius, and other skeletal abnormalities are characteristics of KMDs9. Genetic investigations have revealed that the underlying etiology of this condition is a duplication of the HOXD locus on chromosome 2q9. The skeletal abnormalities that are observed are caused by this duplication, which interferes with the normal expression of HOXD genes. The mode of inheritance for CRHD, whether isolated or syndromic, remains unclear.

According to some studies, the mode of inheritance of CRHD may be autosomal, with dominant and recessive patterns appearing under various conditions2,30 (Figure 2). In contrast to autosomal dominant inheritance, which suggests that the disorder may be caused by a single copy of the faulty gene from one parent, autosomal recessive inheritance requires that the mutant gene be carried by both parents. The exact pattern of inheritance may change on the basis of the particular genetic mutation and related condition2,30.

Diagnostic investigations

Diagnostic tools such as plain radiography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are useful for investigating CRHD and its associated syndromes. Initial radiographic evaluation of CRHD relies on osseous deformities defined by McFarland in 1936, including a relative forearm length discrepancy (short ulna or long radius), hypoplastic or absent humeral capitellum, prominent ulnar epicondyle, structural distal radial groove, underdeveloped trochlea, and a dome-shaped radial head with an elongated neck31. To improve diagnostic specificity against chronic post-traumatic dislocations, Mardam-Bey and Ger (1979) adopted McFarland’s radiographic framework but suggested supplemental clinical factors. These factors include bilateral involvement, familial occurrence, absence of prior trauma, closed reduction irreducibility, documentation at birth, or concurrent systemic anomalies32.

To demonstrate just how important plain radiography is for the diagnosis of CRHD, it is important to highlight that when examining suspected cases of CRHD, plain radiography is one of the first diagnostic tools used to examine the patient32,33. This is because it offers important preliminary insights into the abnormalities in the structures that are connected to this condition (Figure 3A–B)34 and its speed and accessibility. Furthermore, plain radiography is more widely available and used in a variety of healthcare settings since it is less expensive than other imaging modalities. This case involved a male patient who presented at the age of three with congenital, bilateral restriction of forearm rotation. Radiographic imaging revealed anterior dislocation at both radial heads. Furthermore, the proximal radius was found to be hypoplastic relative to the proximal ulna. These findings facilitate the early diagnosis of bilateral CRHD35. MRI and CT are additional imaging modalities that offer complementary information that plain radiography is unable to provide. Superior soft tissue contrast and accurate anatomical visualization make MRI a valuable tool in the field of medical imaging36. MRI helps with complex cases that may involve ligaments, tendons, and cartilage (Figure 4A–C). A study demonstrating this effectiveness focused on evaluating ulnar rotation osteotomy for treating the anterior dislocation variant of CRHD37. In addition, MRI is able to distinguish whether the radial notch of the ulna is located on the anterior-lateral side rather than where it is usually located on the lateral side, and it has been shown that the cartilage covers the radial notch and is somewhat superficial37.

Furthermore, CT scans offer incredibly detailed images of the bone and are an excellent way to assess the three-dimensional structure of the elbow. They can exhibit a degree of abnormalities, including alterations in the radial notch of the ulna and hypoplasia or overgrowth of the radial head. These detailed images are integral for surgical planning, as they enable bone morphology to undergo precise assessment and determine the spatial relationship between the capitellum and radial head, which is clearly observed in the case of bilateral anterior CRHD. Through the use of CT scans of the affected area, a more personalized treatment plan was established since the images produced by the CT scanner were detailed and enabled the researchers to gain a better understanding of the range of motion and rotation, whether it was constrained, and how much, as well as a better understanding of whether the surgical approach was necessary for the patient38.

Nonoperative management

The management of CRHD primarily depends on the patient's level of functional impairment, pain severity, and age (Table 1). Since CRHD can be asymptomatic in some individuals, many cases do not necessitate immediate intervention and are instead managed conservatively with regular monitoring of joint function. Patients with a preserved range of motion generally find CRHD manageable. Concomitant progressive cubitus valgus can also occur alongside a CRHD, potentially owing to lateral physeal pressure exerted by the anteriorly displaced radial head. In the absence of symptoms or functional limitations, a nonoperative approach involving clinical observation is often sufficient and can yield satisfactory outcomes34. The treatment approach for CRHD is a subject of ongoing debate and evolution. In general, monitoring patients, particularly children, rather than opting for surgical correction, is advised because of the potential risks of redislocation and related complications39. Furthermore, it is better to individualize surgical indications for each patient. Consent must be obtained from both the patient and the parents, and effective communication between the patient, parents, and surgeon must be maintained to ensure a clear understanding of the treatment plan and expected outcomes.

Operative techniques

Symptomatic patients often require surgical treatment to improve function and reduce discomfort. Radial head excision is a commonly employed surgical option for CRHD12,32,40. However, when the procedure was conducted before the age of 15, there was a notable tendency for the proximal radius to regrow, whereas when performed after the age of 15, it effectively reduced pain and enhanced appearance, although it had minimal influence on motion6. Miao et al. retrospectively evaluated 20 children with congenital radial head dislocation treated by proximal ulnar rotational osteotomy. At a mean follow-up of 33.9 months, no redislocations or major complications were observed; elbow flexion improved significantly, while forearm rotation was preserved; and 85% of patients achieved excellent radiographic and functional outcomes. These findings suggest that proximal ulnar rotational osteotomy is a safe and effective surgical option for selected cases of anterior CRHD41. An open reduction of the radial head, combined with ulnar osteotomy and annular ligament reconstruction, can also be performed. The annular ligament can be reconstructed via a free tendon graft, the triceps tendon, the forearm fascia, or the fascia of the extensor carpi ulnaris, which can be accessed via the ulna13. Annular ligament reconstruction using a suture anchor is another highly effective technique for restoring the ligament and enabling full functional recovery in children with radial head dislocation42. However, this open reduction approach has previously been considered unreliable for all patients, even when supplemented with ulnar or radial osteotomy or annular ligament reconstruction, due to the high risk of redislocation. The contributing factors include a hypoplastic or absent humeral capitulum or a dome-shaped radial head. Additionally, the presence of significant radial head deformities, often associated with posterior radial dislocations, serves as a contraindication for open reduction. Ultimately, combining ulnar osteotomy with annular ligament reconstruction offers a more effective method for stabilizing the radial heads and achieving favorable outcomes13. To address potential complications from a single osteotomy, such as hematoma, thrombosis, infection, and even functional impairment, a double osteotomy of the proximal ulna has been suggested for CRHD patients5. Alternatively, a surgical procedure can be performed to facilitate the reduction and stabilization of the radiocapitellar joint using a “two-incision approach.” The first incision is dedicated to radial shortening, whereas the second incision is used for the open reduction of the radiocapitellar joint1. Finally, when the annular ligament becomes trapped between the displaced radial head and the capitellum, it can produce a snapping sensation that markedly limits motion and greatly diminishes quality of life. This limitation results from the "checkrein phenomenon," where the annular ligament tightly encircles the radial neck. Surgical interventions, including releasing the entrapped ligament or excising the annular ligament, have demonstrated favorable outcomes in these specific scenarios43.

Treatment outcomes

The clinical and functional outcomes reported in the literature vary considerably depending on the chosen surgical strategy, patient demographics, and the length of follow-up. A review involving 16 patients, 10 treated surgically and 6 managed nonsurgically, evaluated outcomes over an average of 10 years for the surgical group and 16 years for the nonsurgical group. Among these patients, 8 had bilateral dislocations. The study revealed that while elbow flexion remained unchanged in the surgically treated group, forearm rotation improved significantly. The carrying angle was comparable between the surgical and nonsurgical groups, but surgically treated patients showed a marked ulnar variance of +4.9 mm, compared with -0.4 mm in the nonsurgical group. Notably, the surgical group experienced substantial relief from elbow pain following radial head excision. However, 25% of these patients develop wrist pain, which is likely attributable to increased ulnar variance, and require additional surgical correction12. A study involving eight elbows affected by CRHD in six patients with an average age of 13 years examined the outcomes of radial head excision over a seven-year follow-up period. Postoperatively, elbow flexion and extension improved modestly by 11°, whereas forearm rotation demonstrated a significant increase of 53°. All participants reported relief from pain following the procedure. The overall outcomes were evaluated as good in 5 elbows, fair in 2, and poor in 1. The poor result requires repeat excision following reformation40. Radial head excision for patients with isolated CRHD and associated symptoms effectively alleviated pain, leading to high levels of patient satisfaction. However, while forearm rotation slightly improved, there was no noticeable enhancement in elbow joint flexion or extension12,32. The open reduction of the radial head combined with ulnar osteotomy in a five-year-old boy with CRHD led to pain relief, significant improvement in elbow mobility, and no signs of osteoarthritis after a 10-year follow-up5. Furthermore, a study involving 14 children with CRHD who underwent a double osteotomy of the proximal ulna revealed that after the proximal radioulnar joint was rotated posterolaterally following the ulnar cuts, all the participants experienced substantial improvement in elbow movement and correction of the carrying angle to normal. Flexion, extension, and rotation also improved significantly, with no major complications, nerve damage, or redislocation observed during follow-up. Thus, double osteotomy of the proximal ulna demonstrated superior outcomes and increased patient satisfaction with fewer complications5. For the surgical procedure performed on an otherwise healthy 8-year-old individual utilizing the “two-incision approach,” after one year of follow-up, the patient’s elbow demonstrated stability without valgus deformity or fixed flexion issues. Supination significantly improved from 1° to 40°. Radiographic evaluation revealed reformation of the radial head, proper joint alignment, and correction of the radial bow1. Redislocation of the radial head is a frequent complication after corrective ulnar osteotomy. However, the underlying cause of redislocation remains unclear, and there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of reoperation as a treatment approach.

Diagnostic challenges and future considerations

The modest nature of symptoms in early life makes the diagnosis of CRHD difficult. When children exhibit elbow motion limits or pain during adolescence or during assessments for other diseases, CRHD is sometimes discovered by accident. The malformations are radiographically obscured by the immature epiphyseal centers of the radial head and capitulum in young children. These changes become more noticeable after ossification, usually around age 5. As a result, early radiographs may not reveal the distinctive characteristics of CRHD, delaying diagnosis. Despite its importance, clinical examination frequently requires corroborative imaging because characteristics, such as a long, narrow radius neck or a dome-shaped radial head, can be inconspicuous and confusing for other illnesses. A comprehensive history, including the absence of trauma and familial occurrences, and clinical examination are essential for CRHD diagnosis. To distinguish CRHD from traumatic dislocations, it is important to consider factors such as bilateral dislocation, associated congenital abnormalities, lack of trauma history, and irreducibility32. The occurrence of snapping or locking symptoms in situations with anterior dislocation, as noted in the literature, significantly complicates the clinical picture39. Furthermore, recognition of CRHD in adolescence or adulthood may be particularly challenging in patients presenting after elbow trauma, where congenital and traumatic radial head dislocations can exhibit overlapping clinical and radiographic features. Misdiagnosis may result in inappropriate reduction attempts and unnecessary intervention. In equivocal cases, advanced imaging can provide valuable diagnostic information44. CT facilitates detailed assessment of osseous morphology, whereas MRI can identify ligamentous, cartilaginous, and bone marrow changes suggestive of acute injury. Arthrography may further assist by distinguishing intracapsular from extracapsular radial head positioning39,44. Recently, a dual-algorithm diagnostic framework integrating clinical history, radiographic findings, and advanced imaging modalities was proposed to improve differentiation between congenital and traumatic radial head dislocations and support clinical decision-making in complex cases44. However, the clinical manifestations might occasionally be modest. When symptoms are mild, delaying treatment until skeletal maturity is generally recommended unless significant functional impairment necessitates immediate intervention. To accurately diagnose and effectively manage CRHD, modern imaging techniques such as MRI and arthrography must be integrated with a thorough clinical evaluation.

Conclusions

Taken together, CRHD should be approached as a developmental spectrum rather than a uniform elbow deformity. Its clinical significance lies not only in the position of the radial head but also in the degree of pain, forearm rotation loss, elbow stability, skeletal maturity, and the functional demands of each patient. Therefore, treatment should be individualized, with observation remaining appropriate for patients with preserved function and minimal symptoms, while surgery should be considered only when pain, mechanical symptoms, or functional impairment clearly justify intervention. From a clinical perspective, greater awareness of CRHD is essential to avoid delayed diagnosis, misclassification as traumatic dislocation, and unnecessary reduction attempts. Future studies should aim to establish standardized diagnostic criteria, clarify indications for conservative versus operative treatment, and compare long-term functional outcomes across different surgical techniques. Multicenter studies that consistently report pain, range of motion, radiographic progression, complications, and patient-reported outcomes will be particularly important for improving evidence-based decision-making and optimizing care for patients with CRHD.

figure-results-1
Figure 1: Clinical examination. (A) Frontal view showing prominence of the right radial head region. (B) Oblique view showing right elbow deformity consistent with congenital radial head dislocation. The authors have captured these images by themselves to support the content of the review; no copyright concerns are involved. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

figure-results-2
Figure 2: Genetic contribution to congenital radial head dislocation. Altered HOXD expression may impair coordinated forearm development, leading to abnormal capitellum-radial head interaction and radial head subluxation or dislocation. The authors have captured these images by themselves to support the content of the review; no copyright concerns are involved. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

figure-results-3
Figure 3: Plain radiographs of the right elbow demonstrating congenital radial head dislocation. (A) Flexed elbow image showing radiocapitellar incongruity. (B) An extended elbow image showing persistent displacement of the radial head. The authors have captured these images by themselves to support the content of the review; no copyright concerns are involved. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

figure-results-4
Figure 4: MRI images of the right elbow. (A) Sagittal image, (B) coronal image, and (C) axial image; showing apparent displacement of the right radial head toward the anterior, superior, and lateral positions (arrows), with a smooth joint surface and minor fluid accumulation in the right elbow joint (triangle). The authors have captured these images by themselves to support the content of the review; no copyright concerns are involved. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Management ApproachIndicationsProcedure DetailsOutcomes
Conservative Management (12)Asymptomatic patients, minimal functional limitationsRegular monitoring and functional assessment. Focuses on maintaining the range of motion.Typically, satisfactory in cases with minimal symptoms.
Radial Head Excision (40)Painful or functionally limiting cases in adolescence or adulthoodSurgical removal of the radial head to relieve pain and restore some degree of motion.Improves pain and function, although long-term elbow instability can occur.
Open Reduction and Ulnar Osteotomy (13)Symptomatic cases, often performed in younger patientsReduction of the radial head with realignment of the ulna to correct malpositioning.Long-term follow-up shows good outcomes with restoration of the range of motion and joint stability.
Annular Ligament Reconstruction (16)Chronic cases with instability or recurrent dislocationReconstruction of the annular ligament to stabilize the radial head after reduction.Long-term stability, although the joint function may remain limited.

Table 1: Management approaches for congenital radial head dislocation. The table presents conservative and surgical treatment strategies for CRHD, including indications, procedural principles, and reported clinical outcomes.

Disclosures

The authors collected the images to support the review. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

References

  1. Karuppal R, Marthya A, Raman RV, Somasundaran S. Case report: congenital dislocation of the radial head -a two-in-one approach. F1000Res. 2014;3:22.
  2. Agnew DK, Davis RJ. Congenital unilateral dislocation of the radial head. J Pediatr Orthop. 1993;13(4):526–8.
  3. Winfeld MJ, Otero H. Radiographic assessment of congenital malformations of the upper extremity. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(10):1454–70.
  4. Błoński M, Podgórski A, Zakrzewski P, Pomianowski S. Surgical management of congenital radial head dislocation: a case report. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2012;14(4):385–91.
  5. Jie Q, Liang X, Wang X, Wu Y, Wu G, Wang B. Double ulnar osteotomy for the treatment of congenital radial head dislocation. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019;53(6):442–7.
  6. Kelly DW. Congenital dislocation of the radial head: spectrum and natural history. J Pediatr Orthop. 1981;1(3):295–8.
  7. Li Y, Nan G, Chen J, Jiang Y, Zhu W. Radial nerve palsy in the newborn combined with congenital radial head dislocation: Case report and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(5):e37146.
  8. Walsh Ó, Heffernan C, Ryan S, Butler K, Lynch SA. Congenital radial head dislocation and low immunoglobulin M levels in 6p25.3 deletion. Clin Dysmorphol. 2017;26(3):181–4.
  9. Kantaputra PN, Klopocki E, Hennig BP, Praphanphoj V, Le Caignec C, Isidor B, et al. Mesomelic dysplasia Kantaputra type is associated with duplications of the HOXD locus on chromosome 2q. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(12):1310–4.
  10. Mardam-Bey T, Ger E. Congenital radial head dislocation. J Hand Surg Am. 1979;4(4):316–20.
  11. Hung NN, Hien NDN, Sang PC. An open reduction or conservative treatment for congenital radial head dislocation in children. EC Orthop. 2017;8(4):125–40.
  12. Bengard MJ, Calfee RP, Steffen JA, Goldfarb CA. Intermediate-term to long-term outcome of surgically and nonsurgically treated congenital, isolated radial head dislocation. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(12):2495–501.
  13. Yamazaki H, Kato H. Open reduction of the radial head with ulnar osteotomy and annular ligament reconstruction for bilateral congenital radial head dislocation: a case with long-term follow-up. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2007;32(1):93–7.
  14. Echtler B, Burckhardt A. Isolated congenital dislocation of the radial head. Good function in 4 untreated patients after 14–45 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68(6):598–600.
  15. Kohan Fortuna Figueira SV, Puigdevall M. Congenital Radial Head Dislocation. In: Slullitel P, Rossi L, Camino-Willhuber G, editors. Orthopaedics and Trauma: Current Concepts and Best Practices. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2024. p. 833–9.
  16. Al-Qattan MM, Abou Al-Shaar H, Alkattan WM. The pathogenesis of congenital radial head dislocation/subluxation. Gene. 2016;586(1):69–76.
  17. Proudman TW, Moore MH, Abbott AH, David DJ. Noncraniofacial manifestations of Crouzon's disease. J Craniofac Surg. 1994;5(4):218–22.
  18. Gripp KW, Stolle CA, McDonald-McGinn DM, Markowitz RI, Bartlett SP, Katowitz JA, et al. Phenotype of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 Ser351Cys mutation: Pfeiffer syndrome type III. Am J Med Genet. 1998;78(4):356–60.
  19. Hyland VJ, Robertson SP, Flanagan S, Savarirayan R, Roscioli T, Masel J, et al. Somatic and germline mosaicism for a R248C missense mutation in FGFR3, resulting in a skeletal dysplasia distinct from thanatophoric dysplasia. Am J Med Genet A. 2003;120A(2):157–68.
  20. O'Hara FP, Beck E, Barr LK, Wong LL, Kessler DS, Riddle RD. Zebrafish Lmx1b.1 and Lmx1b.2 are required for maintenance of the isthmic organizer. Development. 2005;132(14):3163–73.
  21. Saal HM, Prows CA, Guerreiro I, Donlin M, Knudson L, Sund KL, et al. A mutation in FRIZZLED2 impairs Wnt signaling and causes autosomal dominant omodysplasia. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24(12):3399–409.
  22. Guidera KJ, Satterwhite Y, Ogden JA, Pugh L, Ganey T. Nail patella syndrome: a review of 44 orthopaedic patients. J Pediatr Orthop. 1991;11(6):737–42.
  23. Langer LO Jr. The roentgenographic features of the oto-palato-digital (OPD) syndrome. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1967;100(1):63–70.
  24. Postma AV, van de Meerakker JB, Mathijssen IB, Barnett P, Christoffels VM, Ilgun A, et al. A gain-of-function TBX5 mutation is associated with atypical Holt-Oram syndrome and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Circ Res. 2008;102(11):1433–42.
  25. Mehollin-Ray AR, Kozinetz CA, Schlesinger AE, Guillerman RP, Wang LL. Radiographic abnormalities in Rothmund-Thomson syndrome and genotype-phenotype correlation with RECQL4 mutation status. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):W62–6.
  26. Wall LB, Piper SL, Habenicht R, Oishi SN, Ezaki M, Goldfarb CA. Defining Features of the Upper Extremity in Holt-Oram Syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(9):1764–8.
  27. Zakany J, Duboule D. The role of Hox genes during vertebrate limb development. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2007;17(4):359–66.
  28. Montavon T, Le Garrec JF, Kerszberg M, Duboule D. Modeling Hox gene regulation in digits: reverse collinearity and the molecular origin of thumbness. Genes Dev. 2008;22(3):346–59.
  29. Shears DJ, Offiah A, Rutland P, Sirimanna T, Bitner-Glindzicz M, Hall C. Kantaputra mesomelic dysplasia: a second reported family. Am J Med Genet A. 2004;128A(1):6–11.
  30. Reichenbach H, Hörmann D, Theile H. Hereditary congenital posterior dislocation of radial heads. Am J Med Genet. 1995;55(1):101–4.
  31. McFarland B. Congenital dislocation of the head of the radius. Br J Surg. 1936;24(93):41–9.
  32. Ramprasath DR, Esthak AJM. A rare case of bilateral congenital radial head dislocation: a case report. J Orth Joint Surg. 2020;2(2):66–69.
  33. Dradjat RS, Isnansyah Y, Oktafandi IGNAA. Radial head excision in the treatment of congenital radial head dislocation: a case report. Curr Orthop Pract. 2021;32:626–9.
  34. Kaas L, Struijs PA. Congenital radial head dislocation with a progressive cubitus valgus: a case report. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2012;7(1):39–44.
  35. Maruyama M, Takahara M, Kikuchi N, Ito K, Watanabe T, Ogino T. Snapping elbow with congenital radial head dislocation: case report. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(6):981–5.
  36. What is an MRI scan and what can it do? Drug Ther Bull. 2011;49(12):141–4.
  37. Liu R, Miao W, Mu M, Wu G, Qu J, Wu Y. Ulnar rotation osteotomy for congenital radial head dislocation. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(9):1769–75.
  38. Gao J, Tang J, Li M, Li H, Peng Y, Wang C, et al. Bilateral anterior congenital radial head dislocation in adults: a case report and literature review. Front Surg. 2023;10:1155461.
  39. Mizuno K, Usui Y, Kohyama K, Hirohata K. Familial congenital unilateral anterior dislocation of the radial head: differentiation from traumatic dislocation by means of arthrography. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(7):1086–90.
  40. Campbell CC, Waters PM, Emans JB. Excision of the radial head for congenital dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(5):726–33.
  41. Miao W, Li B, Li J, Zhang K, Zhang X. Efficacy of novel osteotomy techniques in the treatment of congenital radial head dislocation. Front Pediatr. 2026;14:1683592.
  42. Wang J, Jiang LD, He AY, Wang DR, Zhu J, Duan RS, et al. Annular ligament reconstruction by suture anchor for treatment of radial head dislocation in children. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:181.
  43. Kim HJ, Kim PT, Lee HJ, Deslivia MF. Elbow locking in a patient with a congenital radial head dislocation: Case report. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(2):319–21.
  44. Zampetakis K, Chaniotakis C, Kapsetakis P, Tsioupros A, Stavrakakis IM. Congenital versus isolated traumatic radial head dislocation in adults: a diagnostic dilemma with an algorithmic approach. Cureus. 2025;17(8):e90880.

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Tags

Elbow Joint AnomalyGenetic MechanismsDiagnostic EvaluationClinical DifferentiationImaging FindingsSurgical InterventionUlnar OsteotomyAnnular Ligament Reconstruction

Related Articles