| Literature DB >> 31775704 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severely displaced radial neck fractures in skeletally immature children are rare and can be difficult to reduce. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results using our reduction maneuver.Entities:
Keywords: Intramedullary pinning; Percutaneous leverage; Radial neck fracture
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31775704 PMCID: PMC6882240 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2947-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1a An O’Brien type II fracture in a patient. b The K-wire was percutaneously inserted and leveraged before the intramedullary nail was inserted into the patient. c The leverage procedure was performed to reduce the fracture in the patient before the intramedullary nail was inserted. d The additional reduction maneuver for the initially unsuccessful reductions, with patient No.20 as an example
Fig. 2Diagram of our additional reduction maneuver for leverage
Fig. 3Postoperative AP and lateral X-ray of patient No. 20
Metaizeau classification
| Result | Description(anagulation in A-P) |
|---|---|
| Excellent | Anatomic reduction |
| Good | <20degrees |
| Fair | 20-40degrees |
| Poor | > 40 degrees |
Patients, classification, and outcomes
| Patient | Age(yrs) | Gender | Side | Length of op(mins) | O’Brien/Judet classification | Angulation pre-op(degree) | Follow-up(months) | Metaizeau classification | Mayo score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | f | L | 30 | III/IVb | 90 | 34 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 2 | 12 | m | L | 35 | III/IVa | 80 | 42 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 3 | 12 | f | L | 15 | III/IVa | 65 | 34 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 4 | 12 | m | L | 20 | III/IVa | 75 | 50 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 5 | 9 | m | L | 30 | III/IVb | 90 | 45 | Good | Excellent |
| 6 | 11 | m | L | 50 | III/IVb | 90 | 45 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 7 | 8 | m | L | 30 | III/IVa | 75 | lost | Excellent | Lost |
| 8 | 10 | m | L | 50 | III/IVb | 85 | 12 | Good | Good |
| 9 | 9 | f | L | 80 | III/IVa | 75 | 53 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 10 | 9 | f | L | 30 | III/IVb | 90 | 18 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 11 | 5 | f | L | 35 | III/IVa | 80 | 17 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 12 | 5 | f | L | 40 | III/IVa | 70 | 16 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 13 | 8 | m | L | 40 | III/IVa | 80 | 33 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 14 | 8 | m | L | 15 | III/IVb | 90 | 20 | Good | Excellent |
| 15 | 6 | m | R | 20 | III/IVb | 90 | 22 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 16 | 3 | f | R | 80 | III/IVa | 70 | 52 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 17 | 8 | f | R | 50 | III/IVb | 90 | 34 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 18 | 8 | m | L | 30 | II/III | 35 | 42 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 19 | 1.5 | f | L | 25 | II/III | 35 | 52 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 20 | 9 | f | L | 30 | II/III | 40 | 41 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 21 | 7 | f | L | 25 | II/III | 40 | 33 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 22 | 3 | f | R | 20 | II/III | 45 | lost | Excellent | Lost |
| 23 | 4 | f | R | 35 | II/III | 55 | 32 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 24 | 6 | f | R | 45 | II/III | 35 | 21 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 25 | 2.5 | f | R | 20 | II/III | 45 | 19 | Excellent | Excellent |
| 26 | 3 | f | R | 35 | II/III | 40 | 24 | Excellent | Excellent |
Fig. 4Mayo score of patient No. 6
Fig. 5preoperative x-ray, postoperative and final follow-up X-rays of patient No. 6