| Literature DB >> 19838353 |
Narender Saini1, Purnima Patni, Sp Gupta, Lokesh Chaudhary, Vishwadeep Sharma.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of radial clubhand has progressed over the years from no treatment to aggressive surgical correction. Various surgical methods of correction have been described; Centralization of the carpus over the distal end of the ulna has become the method of choice. Corrective casting prior to centralization is an easy and effective method of obtaining soft tissue stretching before any definitive procedure is undertaken. Moreover, it helps put the limb in a correct position. The outcome of deformity correction by serial casting / JESS distractor followed by centralization is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Centralization; JESS; radial clubhand; radial ray defects; serial casting
Year: 2009 PMID: 19838353 PMCID: PMC2762182 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.53461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Orthop ISSN: 0019-5413 Impact factor: 1.251
Heikel's classification of radial clubhand
| Type I | Short distal radius |
| Type II | Hypoplastic radius |
| Type III | Partial absence of radius |
| Type IV | Complete absence of radius |
Heikel's classification of thumb in radial clubhand
| Type I | Normal thumb |
| Type II | Hypoplastic, deviated from normal in size, shape and position but not rudimentary |
| Type III | Rudimentary thumb, attached to the hand by soft tissue pedicle; passive mobility only |
| Type IV | Complete absence of thumb |
Figure 1(Case no. 9) (a) clinical photograph showing grade IV radial club hand left side (b) X-ray forearm (anteroposterior view) with elbow, wrist and hand showing radial club hand grade IV (c) peroperative photograph showing the abnormal median nerve with its cutaneous branches (d) clinical photograph showing correction attained immediate post operatively
Clinical details of patients
| S. No. | Age (months) | Sex | Side involved | Side operated | Heikel's Type | Status of thumb | Associated anomalies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18 | F | L | L | IV | Rudimentary | None |
| 2 | 2 | M | L | L | IV | Hypoplastic | None |
| 3 | 8 | M | B/L | L | IV | Hypoplastic | None |
| 4 | 24 | F | L | L | III | Absent | Scoliosis foot drop, short stature |
| 5 | 20 days | F | L | L | IV | Rudimentary | None |
| 6 | 18 | F | R | R | III | Hypoplastic | Cleft Hand |
| 7 | 4 | M | B/L | L | IV | Absent | None |
| 8 | 4 | M | B/L | R | IV | Absent | None |
| 9 | 12 | M | L | L | IV | Absent | Tracheo oesophageal fistula, Microtia |
| 10 | 12 | M | L | L | III | Rudimentary | None |
| 11 | 12 | F | B/L | L | IV | Absent | None |
| 12 | 24 | M | R | R | IV | Absent | None |
| 13 | 7 | M | B/L | L | IV | Rudimentary | Squint |
| 14 | 7 | M | B/L | R | IV | Absent | None |
| 15 | 4.5 | M | B/L | L | IV | Hypoplastic | Torticollis |
| 16 | 30 | M | L | L | IV | Absent | None |
| 17 | 5 | M | B/L | L | IV | Absent | None |
| 18 | 12 | M | L | L | IV | Absent | None |
Deformity and range of motion (preoperative and at final follow-up)
| S. No. | Radial deviation (initial) (degree) | Radial deviation (final) (degree) | Volar flexion (initial) (degree) | Volar flexion (final) (degree) | ROM elbow (initial) (degree) | ROM elbow (final) (degree) | Total digital motion (initial) (degree) | Total digital motion (final) (degree) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | M | R | L | I | M | R | L | |||||||
| 1 | 70 | Nil | 30 | Nil | 120 | 130 | 120 | 135 | 135 | 130 | 130 | 140 | 140 | 140 |
| 2 | 80 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 210 | 210 | 210 | 150 | 210 | 210 | 210 |
| 3 | 50 | Nil | 20 | Nil | 100 | 100 | 230 | 190 | 220 | 200 | 220 | 190 | 220 | 190 |
| 4 | 90 | 20 | 45 | 5 | 130 | 140 | 160 | 165 | 175 | 185 | 140 | 140 | 180 | 200 |
| 5 | 90 | 5 | 45 | 25 | 90 | 100 | 90 | 205 | 210 | 205 | 100 | 200 | 190 | 190 |
| 6 | 100 | 40 | 85 | 40 | 105 | 105 | 94 | 198 | 210 | 210 | 90 | 135 | 200 | 200 |
| 7 | 110 | 30 | 45 | Nil | 90 | 90 | 270 | 225 | 225 | 225 | 120 | 200 | 225 | 225 |
| 8 | 60 | Nil | 10 | Nil | 100 | 95 | 210 | 160 | 195 | 230 | 200 | 150 | 200 | 220 |
| 9 | 90 | Nil | 45 | Nil | 90 | 60 | 0 | 50 | 140 | 150 | 0 | 50 | 135 | 135 |
| 10 | 90 | Nil | 45 | Nil | 100 | 100 | 270 | 260 | 270 | 270 | 260 | 260 | 270 | 260 |
| 11 | 90 | Nil | 30 | Nil | 90 | 90 | 230 | 210 | 210 | 210 | 210 | 200 | 210 | 210 |
| 12 | 100 | 30 | 45 | 20 | 90 | 90 | 220 | 210 | 170 | 180 | 210 | 210 | 150 | 160 |
| 13 | 90 | Nil | 20 | Nil | 100 | 110 | 270 | 225 | 225 | 225 | 260 | 220 | 225 | 225 |
| 14 | 50 | Nil | 20 | Nil | 90 | 100 | 210 | 205 | 225 | 225 | 200 | 205 | 220 | 220 |
| 15 | 90 | 45 | 45 | 10 | 90 | 90 | 120 | 210 | 220 | 210 | 120 | 200 | 210 | 210 |
| 16 | 45 | Nil | 20 | Nil | 100 | 110 | 140 | 200 | 150 | 220 | 130 | 200 | 150 | 230 |
| 17 | 100 | Nil | 90 | Nil | 100 | 100 | 210 | 225 | 210 | 205 | 200 | 220 | 210 | 205 |
| 18 | 80 | Nil | 30 | Nil | 90 | 90 | 160 | 210 | 230 | 230 | 140 | 200 | 210 | 220 |
| Average | 81 | 10 | 37 | 6 | 99 | 101 | 187 | 195 | 206 | 210 | 166 | 189 | 202 | 178 |
Ulnar angle, ulnar bow, humeral length, ulnar length, relative length of ulna to humerus (initial and final)
| S. No. | Humerus length (initial) (cm) | Humerus length (final) (cm) | Ulna length (initial) (cm) | Ulna length (final) (cm) | Relative length of ulna to humerus (initial) (%) | Relative length of ulna to humerus (final) (%) | Limb length (cm) | 3rd MC- Ulna angle in AP view (initial) (degree) | 3rd MC- Ulna angle in AP view (final) (degree) | 3rd MC- Ulna angle in lateral view (initial) (degree) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.5 | 13 | 7.5 | 9 | 72 | 69 | 4 | 65 | 0 | 30 |
| 2 | 8.8 | 12.4 | 6 | 6.2 | 68 | 50 | 4 | 54 | 4 | 25 |
| 3 | 8 | 10.5 | 4.5 | 5 | 56 | 47 | 3 | 50 | 0 | 20 |
| 4 | 12 | 12.5 | 8.2 | 8.5 | 68 | 68 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 30 |
| 5 | 8.5 | 13.7 | 4.5 | 7.2 | 53 | 53 | 8 | 35 | 0 | 36 |
| 6 | 8 | 13 | 5 | 7.8 | 62 | 60 | 8 | 58 | 34 | 75 |
| 7 | 6 | 10.5 | 5 | 7.5 | 83 | 71 | 7 | 95 | 0 | 70 |
| 8 | 7.2 | 12 | 5.7 | 6 | 79 | 50 | 5 | 75 | 3 | 50 |
| 9 | 6.2 | 16 | 4.7 | 8.5 | 76 | 52 | 13 | 105 | 0 | 40 |
| 10 | 8.5 | 13.5 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 68 | 46 | 5 | 48 | 0 | 30 |
| 11 | 9.7 | 11.5 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 57 | 56 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 30 |
| 12 | 12 | 14.5 | 7.3 | 9 | 61 | 62 | 4 | 88 | 32 | 98 |
| 13 | 10 | 12 | 6.6 | 7 | 66 | 58 | 2 | 59 | 20 | 10 |
| 14 | 12 | 13 | 7.5 | 8 | 63 | 61 | 1.5 | 40 | 0 | 40 |
| 15 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 6.3 | 60 | 52 | 2 | 82 | 30 | 75 |
| 16 | 10.8 | 14 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 51 | 53 | 5 | 22 | 0 | 27 |
| 17 | 6.5 | 15 | 5 | 8.5 | 77 | 57 | 12 | 100 | 18 | 70 |
| 18 | 6.3 | 15.8 | 5 | 9 | 79 | 57 | 13 | 75 | 0 | 38 |
| Average | 9 | 13 | 6 | 7.5 | 67 | 57 | 5 | 61 | 7 | 42 |
Treatment given
| S. No. | Preoperative distraction with cast | Preoperative distraction with JESS | Operative procedure | Osteotomy and its type | Tendon transfers | Final result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yes | – | Radialization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 2 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 3 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 4 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 5 | Yes | – | Radialization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 6 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 7 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 8 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 9 | – | Yes | Centralization | – | ECU advancemen | Satisfactory |
| 10 | Yes | – | Centralization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 11 | Yes | – | Centralization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 12 | – | Yes | Centralization | – | – | Satisfactory |
| 13 | – | Yes | Centralization | Close wedge | FCU to ECU with advancement | Satisfactory |
| 14 | Yes | – | Centralization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 15 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | FCU release with ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 16 | Yes | – | Centralization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 17 | – | Yes | Centralization | Close wedge | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
| 18 | Yes | – | Centralization | – | ECU advancement | Satisfactory |
Final results
| Result | According to Bora (No. of hands) | Percentage | According to Bayne and Klug (No. of hands) | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfactory | 10 | 53 | 17 | 89 |
| Unsatisfactory | 9 | 47 | 2 | 11 |
| Total | 19 | 100 | 19 | 100 |
Figure 2Case no 9 (a,b) clinical photograph of the same patient shown as figure 1 showing correction at 1 year follow up. (c,d) X-ray of correction of same patient at 1 year
Figure 3Case no 4 (a) At presentation with grade IV deformity on left side. (b) X-rays after splinting showing alignment of hand over forearm. (c) Clinical photograph at 2 years follow up after surgery showing maintenance of correction, the left forearm is short than the normal side. (d) X-rays at 2 year follow up showing retained K-wire and maintained correction