| Literature DB >> 23843093 |
Luigi Tarallo1, Raffaele Mugnai, Francesco Fiacchi, Francesco Capra, Fabio Catani.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of radial neck fractures in children varies according to the displacement, angulation, and skeletal maturity. There is a general agreement that displaced radial neck fractures with more than 30° angulations (Judet type III and IV fractures) should be surgically treated. There are several treatment possibilities for Judet type III and IV fractures including percutaneous pin reduction, elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN), and open reduction with or without internal fixation. In this retrospective study we compared the clinical and radiographical outcomes, and complications following intramedullary versus percutaneous pinning in displaced radial neck fractures in children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23843093 PMCID: PMC3828489 DOI: 10.1007/s10195-013-0252-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Traumatol ISSN: 1590-9921
Fig. 1a Radial neck fracture Judet type III. b Osteosynthesis with ESIN, postoperative X-rays. c X-rays at 3 months, after nail removal, showing an excellent alignment
Fig. 2a Radial neck fracture Judet type III. b Osteosynthesis with two percutaneous K-wires, postoperative X-rays. c X-rays at 3 months, after K-wires removal, showing a good alignment
Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS)
| Variable | Definition | No. of points |
|---|---|---|
| Pain (max., 45 points) | None | 45 |
| Mild | 30 | |
| Moderate | 15 | |
| Severe | 0 | |
| Range of motion (max., 20 points) | Arc >100° | 20 |
| Arc 50–100° | 15 | |
| Arc <50° | 5 | |
| Stability (max., 10 points) | Stable | 10 |
| Moderately unstable | 5 | |
| Grossly unstable | 0 | |
| Function (max., 25 points) | Able to comb hair | 5 |
| Able to feed oneself | 5 | |
| Able to perform personal hygiene tasks | 5 | |
| Able to put on shirt | 5 | |
| Able to put on shoes | 5 |
Clinical and radiological comparison between the ESIN and percutaneous pinning group
| Associated injuries | MEPS | Radiological alignment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Medium | Poor | Excellent | Good | ||
| ESIN | |||||||
| All fractures ( | 5 (71) | 2 (29) | – | – | 6 (67) | 1 (33) | |
| Type III ( | 3 (75) | 1 (25) | – | – | 4 (100) | – | |
| Type IV ( | 1 Olecranon fracture ( | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | – | – | 2 (67) | 1 (33) |
| Percutaneous pinning | |||||||
| All fractures ( | 9 (69) | 3 (23) | 1 (8) | – | 10 (77) | 3 (23) | |
| Type III ( | 1 Olecranon fracture ( | 8 (80) | 2 (20) | – | – | 9 (90) | 1 (10) |
| Type IV ( | Olecranon fracture + LCL lesion ( | 1 (33) | 1 (33) | 1 (33) | – | 1 (33) | 2 (67) |
Radiological alignment: excellent, anatomical reduction; good, angle less than 20°; medium, angle of 20°–40°; poor, angle of more than 40°
LCL lateral collateral ligament
Range of motion comparison between ESIN and percutaneous pinning groups
| Flexion (°) (mean ± SD) | Extension (°) (mean ± SD) | Pronation (°) (mean ± SD) | Supination (°) (mean ± SD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured | Uninjured | Fractured | Uninjured | Fractured | Uninjured | Fractured | Uninjured | |
| ESIN ( | ||||||||
| All fractures | 145 ± 6 | 152 ± 5 | 1 ± 1 | 0 | 85 ± 4 | 85 ± 3 | 86 ± 3 | 86 ± 3 |
| Type III | 148 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 90 | 85 | 85 |
| Type IV | 146 ± 6 | 151 ± 5 | 1 ± 1 | 0 | 85 ± 5 | 85 ± 3 | 86 ± 3 | 86 ± 3 |
| Percutaneous pinning ( | ||||||||
| All fractures | 140 ± 14 | 151 ± 4 | 2 ± 3 | 0 | 83 ± 7 | 85 ± 2 | 82 ± 12 | 85 ± 3 |
| Type III | 115 ± 28 | 152 ± 6 | 6 ± 5 | 0 | 73 ± 18 | 86 ± 1 | 62 ± 31 | 82 ± 3 |
| Type IV | 139 ± 5 | 154 ± 2 | 2 ± 2 | 0 | 82 ± 2 | 84 ± 2 | 85 ± 3 | 85 ± 3 |
Groups comparison and statistical analysis
| MEPS | Radiological alignment (°) | Range of motion (°) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∆ flexion | ∆ extension | ∆ pronation | ∆ supination | |||
| ESIN ( | 91.00 ± 7.30 | 1.43 ± 3.78 | 3.00 ± 2.08 | 0.29 ± 0.76 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| Percutaneous pinning ( | 91.08 ± 10.74 | 2.69 ± 5.25 | 31.92 ± 28.03 | 5.00 ± 4.56 | 11.92 ± 14.94 | 18.46 ± 29.32 |
| ESIN vs. percutaneous pinning | 0.9867b | 0.6391c |
|
|
| 0.1448c |
Data expressed as mean ± standard deviation
∆ difference in range of motion between uninjured and fractured arm
aWelch test
bt-test
cMann–Whitney test