| Literature DB >> 34260312 |
Kasper C Roth1, Eline M van Es1, Gerald A Kraan2, Jan A N Verhaar1, Filip Stockmans3, Joost W Colaris1.
Abstract
Closed treatment of paediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures carries the risk of re-displacement, which can lead to symptomatic malunions. This is because growth will not correct angulation deformity as it does in metaphyseal fractures. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the outcomes after 3-D-planned corrective osteotomy with patient-specific surgical guides for paediatric malunited forearm fractures causing impaired pro-supination. Our primary outcome measure was the gain in pro-supination at 12 months follow-up. Fifteen patients with a mean age at trauma of 9.6 years and time until osteotomy of 5.9 years were included. Preoperatively, patients displayed a mean pro-supination of 67° corresponding to 44% of the contralateral forearm. At final follow-up, this improved to 128°, achieving 85% of the contralateral side. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that predictors of greater functional gain after 3-D corrective osteotomy are severe preoperative impairment in pro-supination, shorter interval until 3-D corrective osteotomy and greater angulation of the radius.Level of evidence: III.Entities:
Keywords: Corrective osteotomy; forearm; fracture; malunion; paediatric; radius
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34260312 PMCID: PMC8801669 DOI: 10.1177/17531934211029511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hand Surg Eur Vol ISSN: 0266-7681
Figure 1.3-D printed patient-specific drilling and cutting guides.
Figure 2.3-D printed real-sized model of the planned correction, used for bending of the plates.
Figure 3.(a) Real-sized model of the preoperative ulna (for orientation). (b) Surgical approach to the ulna. (c) Positioning of the patient-specific drilling guide (for screw positioning). (d) Positioning of patient-specific cutting guide (for corrective osteotomy cut). (e) Corrective osteotomy of the ulna. (f) Plate osteosynthesis of the ulna.
Figure 4.Dynamic bracing in pro- or supination (depending on deficit).
Association between clinical/radiological factors and postoperative gain in pro-supination.
| Factors | Number of patients | Gain in pro- supination (°)
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at trauma | |||
| <10 years | 10 | 59 (48–70) | 0.53 |
| 10 years or more | 5 | 48 (26–108) | |
| Age at osteotomy | |||
| <13 years | 6 | 71 (50–92) | 0.17 |
| 13 years or more | 9 | 55 (38–72) | |
| Time until osteotomy | |||
| <1 year | 3 | 83 (13–152) | 0.06 |
| More than 1 year | 12 | 56 (45–68) | |
| Angulation of radius | |||
| <20° | 8 | 50 (36–64) | 0.02 |
| 20° or more | 7 | 75 (57–93) | |
| Angulation of ulna | |||
| <20° | 13 | 63 (49–77) | 0.57 |
| 20° or more | 2 | 53 (15–91) | |
| Pre-op pro-supination | |||
| <69° | 8 | 70 (50–89) | 0.14 |
| 69° or more | 7 | 53 (37–68) |
Gain in pro-supination data presented as mean (95% confidence interval).
Secondary outcomes before surgery and at 6 - and 12-month follow up.
| Outcome measures | Preoperative | Post operative (months) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | ||
| QuickDASH score | 32 (15–38) | 14 (11–15) | 2 (0–11) |
| Grip strength (%)* | 93 (84–103) | 82 (66–98) | 93 (88–98) |
| NRS pain score | 3 (0.5–6.5) | 0 (0–6) | 0 (0–3) |
| NRS cosmetic score | 5 (2–6.5) | 5 (2–7) | 5 (4–5) |
| NRS satisfaction score |
|
| 5 (4–5) |
Data presented as score (interquartile range) in all except for grip strength; grip strength data presented as percentage of the contralateral side (range).
QuickDASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score.
Numerical rating scale (NRS) score (range 1–5: higher score indicates better cosmetics or more satisfaction).