| Literature DB >> 35958014 |
Ping Xu1, Zhiqiang Zhang1, Bo Ning1, Dahui Wang1.
Abstract
Background: The treatment of chronic Monteggia fracture-dislocation (CMF) remains controversial and challenging for surgeons. We describe our initial experience with ulnar osteotomy and angulation on correction with modified open surgery and evaluate outcomes from clinical and radiographic findings.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic Monteggia fracture; children; open surgery
Year: 2022 PMID: 35958014 PMCID: PMC9360808 DOI: 10.21037/tp-21-614
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Pediatr ISSN: 2224-4336
Figure 1Measurement of MID, PUL and bending angle. (A) Measurement of MID on the anteroposterior view of forearm radiographs, the largest distance between ulna and radius (1). (B) Measurement of PUL (2/3) and bending angle (∠4) of ulna on the lateral view of forearm radiographs. MID, maximum interosseous distance; PUL, proportional ulnar length.
Figure 2Demonstration of our surgical procedure: (A and B) anteroposterior and lateral view of the elbow before the surgery; (C) A 3 to 5 cm incision was made to access necessary structures. The radial nerve was identified, depressed, and protected; (D) the state of the radial head and annular ligament were assessed, reduce the ligament or excise the scar tissues; (E) another 4 to 6 cm incision was achieved to have a proximal ulnar osteotomy; (F) insert an autogenous cancellous iliac crest bone graft at the ulnar osteotomy site, then 5- or 6-holes plate was placed at the medial (or lateral) side of ulna; (G and H) lateral and anteroposterior view of the elbow after the surgery.
Demographic details of patients
| Characteristics | Data |
|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Male | 15 (83.33) |
| Female | 3 (16.67) |
| Side, n (%) | |
| Left | 7 (38.89) |
| Right | 11 (61.11) |
| Complains, n (%) | |
| Bony prominence | 10 (55.56) |
| Limited range of motion | 15 (83.33) |
| Pain | 5 (27.78) |
| Valgus deformity | 3 (16.67) |
| Neurological problems | 2 (11.11) |
| Follow-up time* (mth) | 46.58 [24–96] |
| Complications, n (%) | |
| Nonunion | 3 (16.67) |
*, the values are given as the mean, with the range in parentheses.
Surgical details of patients
| Characteristics | Data |
|---|---|
| Age* (y) | 6.78 [4–13] |
| Interval* (month) | 11.14 [1–48] |
| Annular ligament, n (%) | |
| Excised scar tissue | 10 (55.56) |
| Reposition | 8 (44.44) |
| Ulnar osteotomy, n (%) | |
| Proximal site | 18 (100.00) |
| Bone graft, n (%) | |
| Iliac | 14 (77.78) |
| Allograft | 4 (22.22) |
*, the values are given as the mean, with the range in parentheses.
Radiological details of patients
| Characteristics | Data |
|---|---|
| Bado classification, n (%) | |
| I | 18 (100.00) |
| Final reduction status, n (%) | |
| Good | 15 (83.33) |
| Fair | 3 (16.67) |
| Arthrosis, n (%) | 0 (0) |
| Lengthening* (mm) | 8.78 [3.61–17.52] |
| Osteotomy angle* (°) | 12.88 [3–25] |
*, the values are given as the mean, with the range in parentheses.
Correlations between the lengthening, angulation of ulna, and the interval were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficient
| Variables | Correlation coefficient | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Lengthening & time interval | 0.632 | 0.005 |
| Bending angle & time interval | 0.502 | 0.034 |
| Bending angle & lengthening | 0.648 | 0.004 |
Figure 3Scatterplots and trendlines show the relationships between the lengthening, the angulation of ulna, and the interval. Data were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficient.
Radiological and clinical changes pre- and post-surgeries
| Variables | Preop.* | Last follow-up* | Difference | 95% CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PUL | 1.06±0.03 | 1.13±0.11 | −0.07 | −0.03 to 0.00 | 0.047 |
| MID | 1.11±0.26 | 1.28±0.27 | −0.17 | −0.32 to −0.03 | 0.021 |
| Kim scores | 59.17±18.17 | 90±6.64 | −35.83 | −45.86 to −25.81 | 0.000 |
*, the values are given as the mean and the standard deviation. PUL, proportional ulnar length; MID, maximum interosseous distance.