SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2

Open reduction and internal fixation in AO type C distal humeral fractures using olecranon osteotomy: Functional and clinical results

ZEYNEL MERT ASFUROĞLU
ULUKAN İNAN
HAKAN ÖMEROĞLU
Pages
162–167
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that the loss of extension was more severe, the range of flexion was decreased, and the mean MEPI score was lower in the patients with type C3 fractures than in those with type C1 and type C2 fractures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: To investigate the outcomes of patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation with olecranon osteotomy due to AO type13C fractures of the distal humerus.METHODS: Data of 39 patients (mean age, 44.7 years; males, 56.4%) undergoing surgery with the diagnosis of AO type 13C distal humeral fractures were retrospectively evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The patients were evaluated at the final follow-up according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI).RESULTS: The mean degrees of flexion and extension loss were 102.2 degrees (range, 60–120 degrees) and 11.4 degrees (range, 0–25 degrees), respectively, at the final follow-up.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the loss of extension was more severe, the range of flexion was decreased, and the mean MEPI score was lower in the patients with type C3 fractures than in those with type C1 and type C2 fractures.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To investigate the outcomes of patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation with olecranon osteotomy due to AO type13C fractures of the distal humerus.METHODS: Data of 39 patients (mean age, 44.7 years; males, 56.4%) undergoing surgery with the diagnosis of AO type 13C distal humeral fractures were retrospectively evaluated. Patients’ demographic characteristics, medical history, and radiological and functional outcomes were recorded. The patients were evaluated at the final follow-up according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI).RESULTS: The mean degrees of flexion and extension loss were 102.2 degrees (range, 60–120 degrees) and 11.4 degrees (range, 0–25 degrees), respectively, at the final follow-up. According to the MEPI score, outcomes were excellent in seven, good in 12, fair in 13, and poor in seven patients. All patients achieved a radiological union of the fracture site within the first postoperative six months. It was found that the loss of extension was more severe, the range of flexion was decreased, and the mean MEPI score was lower in the patients with type C3 fractures than in those with type C1 and type C2 fractures. No significant difference was determined between fixation techniques (tension band vs. cannulated screw) regarding the functional outcomes.CONCLUSION: Our results revealed better prognosis in AO type C1 and type C2 fractures than in AO type C3 fractures and no different effects of two fixation techniques in olecranon osteotomy on the outcomes

🔖

Cite This Article

ASFUROĞLU, Z. M., İNAN, U., ÖMEROĞLU, H. (2018). Open reduction and internal fixation in AO type C distal humeral fractures using olecranon osteotomy: Functional and clinical results. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2, 162–167. https://ajindex.com/articles/323631

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Pollock JW, Faber KJ, Athwal GS. Distal humerus fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 2008;39:187–200
  2. Kocaoglu M, Şener N, Şar C, Hamzaoglu A, Tuncay İ. Intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus in the adult: Surgical treatment and results. Joint Dis Rel Surg 1999;10:149–54
  3. Chan K, King GJ, Faber KJ. Treatment of complex elbow fracture-dislocations. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2016;9:185–9
  4. Nauth A, McKee MD, Ristevski B, Hall J, Schemitsch EH. Distal humeral fractures in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:686–700
  5. Holdsworth BJ. Humerus: distal. In: Ruedi TP, Murphy WM, editors. AO Principles of Fracture Management. Stuttgart New York: Thieme; 2000. p. 307–21
  6. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:453–8
  7. Morrey BF, An KN. Functional evaluation of the elbow. In: Morrey BF, editor. The Elbow and Its Disorders. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2000. p. 82
  8. O’Driscoll SW. Optimizing stability in distal humeral fracture fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:186S–94S
  9. Bégué T. Articular fractures of the distal humerus. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:S55–63
  10. Lee DH. Treatment options for complex elbow fracture dislocations. Injury 2001;32 Suppl 4:SD41–69
  11. Flinkkilä T, Toimela J, Sirniö K, Leppilahti J. Results of parallel plate fixation of comminuted intra-articular distal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:701–7
  12. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Torchia ME, O’driscoll SW. Principle-based internal fixation of distal humerus fractures. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 2001;5:179–87
  13. Babhulkar S, Babhulkar S. Controversies in the management of intra-articular fractures of distal humerus in adults. Indian J Orthop 2011;45:216–25
  14. Min W, Ding BC, Tejwani NC. Comparative functional outcome of AO/ OTA type C distal humerus fractures: open injuries do worse than closed fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;72:E27–32
  15. Ozdemir H, Urgüden M, Söyüncü Y, Aslan T. Long-term functional results of adult intra-articular distal humeral fractures treated by open reduction and plate osteosynthesis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2002;36:328–35
  16. Claessen FM, Braun Y, van Leeuwen WF, Dyer GS, van den Bekerom MP, Ring D. What Factors are Associated With a Surgical Site Infection After Operative Treatment of an Elbow Fracture? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:562–70
  17. Marda