| Literature DB >> 35899128 |
Wen Shu1, Rong Zhao2, ZiMo Yang2, XiangRui Li2, GuoYong Jiang2, Saroj Rai3, Haobo Zhong4, Xin Tang5.
Abstract
Background: It is uncommon for young children to suffer an intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus. Although many approaches have been described to manage, there is no specific and accepted treatment protocol for such fracture patterns. This study aimed to identify the incidence of intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus in the pediatric population and report the clinical outcome of external fixation and percutaneous pinning in such injury patterns.Entities:
Keywords: children; closed reduction; distal humerus; external fixation; intercondylar fracture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35899128 PMCID: PMC9309387 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.916604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.569
Preoperative demographics of the patients.
| No. | Age (years) | Gender | AO classification |
| 1 | 7 | W | C1 |
| 2 | 6 | M | C1 |
| 3 | 10 | M | C1 |
| 4 | 5 | M | C1 |
| 5 | 7 | W | C1 |
| 6 | 8 | M | C1 |
| 7 | 9 | M | C2 |
| 8 | 12 | M | C1 |
FIGURE 1(A) Anteroposterior and (B) lateral radiographs of a 6-year-old boy with an intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus; (C) CT scan showing C1 type of AO classification; (D) anteroposterior and (E) lateral radiographs post-operation; (F) anteroposterior and (G) lateral radiographs at 12 months post-operation; and the follow-up in 24 months after surgery show excellent cosmetic results (H) and the functional appearance (I,J).
FIGURE 2The C-arm x-ray during operation showed: (A) the distal lateral condyle fragment located with a syringe needle; (B) placement of radial unilateral external fixation; (C) reset the lateral side of the distal humerus by closed reduction and tightened external fixation; (D) placement of the radial side anti-rotation K-wire to stable the lateral fragment; (E) placement of the ulnar K-wire to stable the medial fragment; (F) lateral view of the elbow after fixation.
Perioperative and follow-up data.
| No. | OD (min) | FLT (month) | CAD | MEPS | UT (week) | Flynn |
| 1 | 56 | 36 | 2 | 95 | 12 | Excellent |
| 2 | 60 | 37 | 3 | 95 | 10 | Excellent |
| 3 | 52 | 24 | 3 | 90 | 12 | Good |
| 4 | 55 | 48 | 2 | 95 | 9 | Excellent |
| 5 | 57 | 45 | 0 | 95 | 10 | Good |
| 6 | 49 | 27 | 4 | 95 | 10 | Good |
| 7 | 52 | 39 | 3 | 100 | 10 | Excellent |
| 8 | 46 | 42 | 3 | 95 | 12 | Good |
OD, operation duration (min); FLT, follow-up time (month); CAD, carrying angle difference; MEPS, Mayo Elbow Performance Score; UT, union time.