| Literature DB >> 24228016 |
Véronique Andrey1, Stéphane Tercier, Frédéric Vauclair, Aline Bregou-Bourgeois, Nicolas Lutz, Pierre-Yves Zambelli.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcome of lateral condyle fracture of the elbow in children treated with bioabsorbable or metallic material. From January 2008 to December 2009, 16 children with similar fractures and ages were grouped according to the fixation material used. Children were seen at 3, 6, and 12 months and more than 4 years (mean 51.8 months) postoperatively. The clinical results were compared using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). Radiographic studies of the fractured and opposite elbow were assessed at last follow-up control. Twelve children had a sufficient followup and could be included in the study. Seven could be included in the traditional group and 5 in the bioabsorbable group. At 12 months, the MEPS was 100 for every child in both groups. Asymptomatic bony radiolucent visible tracks and heterotopic ossifications were noted in both groups. There were no significant differences in terms of clinical and radiological outcome between the two groups. The use of bioabsorbable pins or screws is a reasonable alternative to the traditional use of metallic materials for the treatment of lateral condyle fracture of the elbow in children.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24228016 PMCID: PMC3817636 DOI: 10.1155/2013/869418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Patient characteristics: Age, gender, and side of injury.
| Case | Gender | Age at time of injury | Side of injury |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Group 1) | |||
| 1 | F | 6 | G |
| 2 | M | 6 | G |
| 3 | F | 5 | G |
| 4 | M | 14 | G |
| 5 | M | 7 | G |
| 6 | M | 5 | D |
| 7 | M | 11 | G |
|
| |||
| (Group 2) | |||
| 1 | F | 14 | G |
| 2 | M | 14 | G |
| 3 | M | 6 | G |
| 4 | M | 5 | D |
| 5 | F | 7 | G |
Summary of results: MEP scores and complications.
| Case | Age | Mayo Elbow performance score | Complications | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | 3 months | 6 months | After 12 months | |||
| (Group 1) | ||||||
| 1 | 6 | 75 | 95 | 95 | 100 | None |
| 2 | 6 | 75 | 95 | 100 | 100 | None |
| 3 | 5 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | None |
| 4 | 14 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | None |
| 5 | 7 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | Valgus > 10° |
| 6 | 5 | 75 | 95 | 100 | 100 | None |
| 7 | 11 | 75 | 85 | 95 | 100 | None |
|
| ||||||
| (Group 2) | ||||||
| 1 | 14 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | None |
| 2 | 14 | 75 | 90 | 95 | 100 | ROM reduction |
| 3 | 6 | 75 | 95 | 100 | 100 | Valgus > 10° |
| 4 | 5 | 75 | 95 | 100 | 100 | None |
| 5 | 7 | 75 | 95 | 100 | 100 | Valgus > 10° |
Summary of results: mean age, MEP scores, and Baumann's angle variation.
| Parameter | Group 1 | Group 2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 9,2 years (5–14) | 7,7 years (5–14) | 0.5011 |
| Mayo score (1 month) | 75 | 75 | 1 |
| Mayo score (3 months) | 95,7 (85–100) | 95,0 (90–100) | 0,427 |
| Mayo score (6 months) | 99,2 (95–100) | 99,0 (95–100) | 1 |
| Mayo score (after 12 months) | 100 | 100 | 1 |
| Baumann angle variation | 2,7° (0–6) | 8,6° (0–18) | 0.1915 |
Figure 1Fractured elbow compared to the contralateral healthy elbow at 4-year followup (group 1).
Figure 2Fractured elbow compared to the contralateral healthy elbow at 4-year followup (group 2).