| Literature DB >> 20721596 |
Michael Akbar1, Bjoern Bresch, Patric Raiss, Carl Hans Fürstenberg, Thomas Bruckner, Thorsten Seyler, Claus Carstens, Rainer Abel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with myelomeningocele (MMC), a high number of fractures occur in the paralyzed extremities, affecting mobility and independence. The aims of this retrospective cross-sectional study are to determine the frequency of fractures in our patient cohort and to identify trends and risk factors relevant for such fractures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20721596 PMCID: PMC2948122 DOI: 10.1007/s10195-010-0102-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Traumatol ISSN: 1590-9921
Fig. 1This 3.5-year-old girl (neurosegmental level of lesion below L3) sustained a fracture of the left lower leg with no history of injury. Bilateral clubfoot surgery with subsequent 10-week plaster cast immobilization had been performed 11 weeks prior to the fracture. The fracture was treated by cast immobilization. Approximately 4 months later, the patient sustained a fracture of the proximal epiphyseal plate of the tibia, again without any history of trauma. The fracture was immobilized in a long leg cast for 7 weeks
Fracture etiology
| Etiology of fractures | Number of fractures, |
|---|---|
| Fall | 59 (35) |
| Transfer | 28 (16) |
| Cast immobilization | 62 (37) |
| Unknown | 21 (12) |
| Total | 170 (100) |
Fracture distribution
| Location of fractures | Number of fractures, |
|---|---|
| Femur, neck | 5 (3) |
| Femur, intertrochanteric | 2 (1) |
| Femur, subtrochanteric | 13 (8) |
| Femur, shaft | 64 (38) |
| Femur, supracondylar | 39 (23) |
| Femur, distal epiphyseal plate | 4 (2) |
| Tibia, condylar | 5 (3) |
| Tibia, proximal epiphyseal plate | 1 (1) |
| Tibia, infracondylar | 9 (5) |
| Tibia, shaft | 11 (6) |
| Tibia, supramalleolar | 10 (6) |
| Tibia, distal epiphyseal plate | 5 (3) |
| Metatarsal 5 | 1 (1) |
| Radius, distal | 1 (1) |
| Total | 170 (100) |
Distribution of level of lesion in our study population and in patients who sustained a fracture
| Level of lesion | All patients (%) | Patients with fractures (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Thoracic | 270 (31.3) | 55 (59.8) |
| Upper lumbar (L1−L3) | 248 (28.8) | 24 (26.1) |
| Lower lumbar (L4 + L5) | 286 (33.2) | 12 (13.0) |
| Sacral | 58 (6.7) | 1 (1.1) |
| Total | 862 (100) | 92 (100) |
Logistic regression analysis: risk to sustain a fracture at different neurological level of lesion
| Level of lesion | Number of fractures (%), | Odds ratio [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|
| Thoracic | 105 (61.8) | 6.1 [1.4; 26.0] |
| L1−L3 | 45 (26.5) | 2.9 [0.7; 12.6] |
| L2−L5 | 19 (11.2) | 2.0 [0.5; 8.8] |
| Sacral | 1 (0.6) |
CI, confidence interval
Fig. 2BMD (z-score) in myelomeningocele patients with different level of neurological impairment. 1 thoracic level. 2 upper lumbar level. 3 lower lumbar level
Fig. 3BMD (z-score) in myelomeningocele patients with different ambulatory abilities. 1 nonambulators. 2 household ambulators. 3 community ambulators
Comparison of the ambulatory status of patients who had epiphyseal fractures and patients who had other type of fractures
| Ambulatory status | Patients with epiphyseal plate fractures, | Patients with other fractures, |
|---|---|---|
| Community ambulators | 5 (56) | 13 (16) |
| Household ambulators | 1 (11) | 9 (11) |
| Nonfunctional ambulators | 2 (22) | 29 (35) |
| Nonambulators | 1 (11) | 32 (38) |
| Total | 9 (100) | 83 (100) |
Fracture distribution with respect to ambulation according to the classification of Hoffer et al. [19]
| Ambulation | Number of patients (%) | Number of fractures (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Class 1 (community ambulators) | 18 (19.6) | 30 (17.7) |
| Class 2 (household ambulators) | 10 (10.9) | 14 (8.2) |
| Class 3 (nonfunctional ambulators) | 31 (33.7) | 66 (38.8) |
| Class 4 (nonambulators) | 33 (35.9) | 60 (35.3) |
| Total | 92 (100) | 170 (100) |