| Literature DB >> 34222144 |
Hai Zhou1,2, Ge Zhang1,2, Ming Li1,2, Xing Liu1,2, Xiangyang Qu1,2, Yujiang Cao1,2, Liuqi Weng1,2, Yuan Zhang1,2.
Abstract
Objective: The metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) fracture is an uncommon but problematic type of fracture occurring at the distal humerus in children. Closed reduction and fixation are challenging and may not be possible with the conventional reduction maneuver utilized in supracondylar fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) technique for the treatment of these fractures.Entities:
Keywords: children; closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; distal metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction; fracture; humeral
Year: 2021 PMID: 34222144 PMCID: PMC8247651 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.670164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Figure 1A 2-year-old girl with displaced MDJ fracture of her left elbow. (A) The anteroposterior (AP) radiograph and coronal 3D-CT image of the MDJ fracture; (B) the lateral radiograph and sagittal 3D-CT image of the fracture; (C) the AP and lateral radiographs when inserting a pin into the distal fracture end; (D) the AP and lateral radiographs where the intramedullary pin crosses the fracture line; (E) the AP and lateral radiographs when driving the pin through the fracture line and into the intramedullary canal; (F) the AP radiographs of cross-pin placement; the AP (G), lateral (H), and oblique (I) radiographs after cross-pin configuration; (J–M) the post-operative appearance of the elbow after this novel, minimally invasive procedure.
Figure 2A 4-year-old boy with displaced MDJ fracture of his right elbow. (A) The coronal and sagittal 3D-CT images of the fracture; (B) the AP and lateral radiographs of the fracture before intraoperative reduction; (C) the AP and lateral radiographs after the utilization of the novel CRPP procedure intraoperatively; (D) the AP and lateral radiographs at 1 day after surgery; (E) the AP and lateral radiographs at the time of pin removal 4 weeks post-operatively; (F) the AP and lateral radiographs at 12 months post-operative follow-up.
General descriptive data of the included Children.
| No. of children | 6 | 8 | |
| Age at the presentation (yo) | 5.00 ± 2.00 | 5.75 ± 3.69 | 0.197 |
| Sex (male/female) | 4/2 | 4/4 | 0.627 |
| Side of injury (left/right) | 3/3 | 3/5 | 1.000 |
| Neurovascular involvement | 0 | 0 | |
| Fracture type | |||
| Oblique | 3 | 5 | |
| Transverse | 2 | 2 | |
| Comminuted | 1 | 1 | |
| Interval from injury to surgery (D) | 2.00 ± 0.63 | 2.25 ± 0.71 | 0.352 |
| Pin configuration | |||
| 1 INRA, 2 LAT, 1 MED | 1 | ||
| 1 INRA, 1 LAT, 1 MED | 6 | 0 | |
| 1 LAT, 1 MED | 0 | 2 | |
| 2 LAT, 1 MED | 0 | 5 | |
| Need for open reduction | 0/6 | 3/8 | 0.209 |
| Surgery duration | |||
| CR only | 41.67 ± 7.53 | 79.38 ± 10.16 | <0.001 |
| Re-operation | 0/6 | 1/8 | 1.000 |
yo, years old; D, days; INTRA, Intramedullary; LAT, lateral; MED, medial;
significance.
Radiographic Outcomes of successful CR in two groups in two groups.
| Baumann's angle | |||
| Post-operative immediately | 69.00 ± 4.65 | 67.60 ± 6.43 | 0.735 |
| Pins removal | 68.50 ± 6.02 | 67.40 ± 5.03 | 0.413 |
| Last follow-up | 69.33 ± 5.79 | 67.60 ± 4.51 | 0.73 |
| Lateral humeralcapitellar angle | |||
| Post-operative immediately | 41.67 ± 5.50 | 39.40 ± 7.13 | 0.281 |
| Pins removal | 39.83 ± 4.45 | 39.20 ± 4.50 | 0.544 |
| Last follow-up | 41.83 ± 5.08 | 39.60 ± 5.18 | 0.774 |
Clinical outcomes of successful CR in two groups.
| Flexion of the FE | 138.33 ± 4.89 | 136.00 ± 4.53 | 0.763 |
| Flexion of the CE | 141.17 ± 4.17 | 141.00 ± 5.70 | 0.828 |
| 0.035 | <0.001 | ||
| Extension of the FE | 1.33 ± 1.51 | 0.40 ± 2.07 | 0.398 |
| Extension of the CE | 3.00 ± 1.67 | 3.00 ± 2.35 | 0.152 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| ROM of the FE | 139.67 ± 4.93 | 136.40 ± 5.64 | 0.796 |
| ROM of the CE | 144.17 ± 5.64 | 144.00 ± 6.00 | 0.941 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Carrying angle of the FE | 7.00 ± 1.26 | 6.60 ± 3.13 | 0.049 |
| Carrying angle of the CE | 7.83 ± 2.64 | 9.20 ± 2.77 | 0.952 |
| 0.008 | <0.001 | ||
| Flynn's criteria | |||
| Functional, loss of ROM (°) | |||
| Excellent (0–5) | 4 | 1 | |
| Good (5–10) | 2 | 4 | |
| Fair (10–15) | 0 | 0 | |
| Poor (>15) | 0 | 0 | |
| Cosmetic, difference in CA (°) | |||
| Excellent (0–5) | 6 | 5 | |
| Good (5–10) | 0 | 0 | |
| Fair (10–15) | 0 | 0 | |
| Poor (>15) | 0 | 0 | |
FE, fracture elbow; CE, contralateral elbow; ROM, range of motion; CA, carrying angle;
significance.