| Literature DB >> 35852186 |
Rui Zhang, Feng Xue, Shenghe Liu, Hongjiang Ruan, Jia Xu, Qinglin Kang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of close-wedge osteotomy and monorail external fixator in the treatment of chronic Monteggia fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2021, data of a total of 22 patients (14 males, 8 females; mean age: 15.6±5.1 years; range, 6 to 25 years) who suffered from chronic Monteggia fractures were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients were treated for acute angulation of the ulna after osteotomy and gradual angulation for radial head reduction. Range of motion of the elbow and forearm, the angle between the longitudinal axis of proximal radius and the hypothesized Storen's line (RSA), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), as well as Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score were recorded preoperatively and at the final follow-up.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35852186 PMCID: PMC9361109 DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2022.662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Jt Dis Relat Surg ISSN: 2687-4792
Demographic data*
| Case | Age (year) | Sex | Side | Bado classification | FT (mo) | UL (mm) | EFI (d/cm) | BHI (d/cm) | DH | TSI (year) |
| 1 | 14 | Male | R | Type 1 | 36 | 21 | 23.8 | 38.1 | R | 8 |
| 2 | 22 | Male | R | Type 1 | 33 | 33 | 20.3 | 30.6 | R | 6.5 |
| 3 | 18 | Male | R | Type 1 | 41 | 20 | 26.5 | 41.5 | R | 6 |
| 4 | 8 | Male | L | Type 1 | 53 | 23 | 23.9 | 36.5 | R | 4 |
| 5 | 12 | Female | L | Type 1 | 50 | 31 | 21.0 | 31.0 | R | 5 |
| 6 | 6 | Female | R | Type 1 | 47 | 19 | 24.7 | 39.5 | R | 3 |
| 7 | 19 | Male | R | Type 1 | 48 | 28 | 20.7 | 34.3 | R | 11 |
| 8 | 25 | Male | R | Type 1 | 36 | 30 | 20.7 | 33.3 | R | 15 |
| 9 | 23 | Female | R | Type 2 | 46 | 32 | 20.3 | 32.8 | R | 14 |
| 10 | 13 | Female | R | Type 2 | 44 | 22 | 24.1 | 45.0 | R | 8 |
| 11 | 15 | Male | L | Type 1 | 42 | 21 | 25.2 | 44.3 | R | 9 |
| 12 | 17 | Male | L | Type 1 | 28 | 23 | 22.2 | 40.9 | R | 12 |
| 13 | 11 | Female | R | Type 3 | 33 | 20 | 25.0 | 41.0 | R | 5 |
| 14 | 20 | Male | L | Type 1 | 35 | 18 | 26.1 | 45.6 | R | 12 |
| 15 | 22 | Male | R | Type 1 | 40 | 19 | 26.3 | 46.3 | R | 12 |
| 16 | 21 | Female | R | Type 1 | 41 | 23 | 23.5 | 40.4 | R | 13 |
| 17 | 15 | Female | L | Type 1 | 43 | 21 | 24.8 | 41.9 | R | 7 |
| 18 | 15 | Male | R | Type 1 | 58 | 23 | 22.6 | 37.0 | R | 9 |
| 19 | 14 | Male | L | Type 1 | 60 | 29 | 21.0 | 35.2 | R | 7 |
| 20 | 12 | Female | L | Type 1 | 22 | 21 | 26.2 | 41.9 | R | 7 |
| 21 | 13 | Male | R | Type 2 | 29 | 33 | 20.9 | 33.3 | R | 8 |
| 22 | 9 | Male | L | Type 1 | 33 | 20 | 26.5 | 47.5 | R | 5 |
| Average | 15.6±5.1 | 40.8±9.6 | 24.1±5.0 | 23.5±2.3 | 39.0±5.1 | 8.5±3.4 | ||||
| FT: Follow-up time; UL: Ulnar lengthen gained; EFI: External fixation index; BHI: Bone healing index; DH: Dominant hand; TSI: Trauma-to-surgery interval. | ||||||||||
Outcomes
| Parameter | EE (°) | EF (°) | FP (°) | FS (°) | RSA (°) | VAS (points) | MEPS (points) | DASH (points) |
| Preoperative | -1.8±2.7 | 119.1±7.9 | 58.2±13.0 | 58.0±19.7 | 21.4±4.5 | 2.8±2.0 | 73.2±12.5 | 28.3±6.0 |
| Last follow-up | 2.6±1.1 | 138.9±7.4 | 74.5±6.0 | 75.1±6.2 | 2.0±1.4 | 0.5±0.9 | 96.6±6.4 | 4.1±2.0 |
| t value | 6.88 | 25.86 | 6.93 | 5.28 | 18.20 | 4.86 | 7.70 | 19.35 |
| P value | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| EE: Elbow extension; EF: Elbow flexion; FP: Forearm pronation; FS: Forearm supination; RSA: The angle between the axis of proximal radius preoperatively and Storen’s line; VAS: Visual Analog Scale; MEPS: Mayo Elbow Performance Score; DASH: Disability of arm-shoulder-hand score. | ||||||||