Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures by Bilateral Triceps Approach

Authors

1 Orthopedic and Trauma Imam Reza Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Imam Reza Hospital, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

3 Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Shafa Orthopedic Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran

10.5812/rijm.19986

Abstract

Background: Humerus supracondyllar fracture is one of the most common elbow injuries. Choice of treatment depends on grading of the displacement. Closed Reduction and pinning is the preferred method of treatment. Open reduction is indicated when we encounter neurovascular injury after closed reduction. One of the most important factors in the outcome of surgery is an appropriate approach that would provide better exposure with less soft tissue injury. Anterior, posterior, medial and lateral surgical approaches are used for this type of fracture. Objectives: Posterior bilateral triceps approach has less been studied so far. In this study we review the results of humerus supracondyllar fracture surgery by this approach. Patients and Methods: This study is a case series and includes 43 patients aged between 3.5-15 who referred to Imam Reza Hospital in Mashhad Iran from July 2006 to Octobre 2011 with humeral supracondylar fracture; Gartrland; type III. All patients had at least once, failed closed reduction. On admission, all patients with open fracture or neurovascular injury were excluded. All the patients were operated in one hospital and with the same method (bilateral triceps open reduction). Patients were followed up from 7 months to 2 years by the clinicians who were not involved in the selection of patients, the process of treatment and surgery. History, basic information, DASH questionnaire (disability of the arm and hand) physical clinical examination, particularly ROM (range of motion) and objective tests to measure muscular strength and radiographies were reviewed. Results: The mean age was 7.2 ± 2.4 years. The mechanisms of injuries were falling in 25 patients, skateboarding accident in 6 patients and 12 cases of motorized or non-motorized vehicle accidents. 8 patients required physiotherapy (maximum 20 sessions). Joint ROM in 91% of patients was complete. 4 patients (9%) had about 5-10 degree of limited range of extension (flexion deformity). The mean elbow flexion and extension strength in the injured hand was 80%-95% of the opposite one. No instability and laxity of the elbow joint was seen. The mean score of DASH was 30 ± 2.4. Reduction in the X-ray control after surgery was acceptable. No loss of reduction, nonunion and malunion, hardware failure, wound and infection complications, bleeding from the wound or hematoma formation at the site of surgery, neurological disorders after surgery and paresis were seen in postoperative examinations. Conclusions: By using Bilateral triceps approach for humerus supracondylar fracture, you can be able to have a very good exposure field as presented on pictures and due to less soft tissue damage in this approach, you need less immobilization time. After six weeks, the patient has full elbow range of motion, acceptable DASH score and no complication

Keywords


  1. 1.Cheng JCY, Shen WY. Limb fracture pattern in different pediatric age groups: a study of 3,350 children. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7(1):15–22.

    1. Chen RS, Liu CB, Lin XS, Feng XM, Zhu JM, Ye FQ. Supracondylar extension fracture of the humerus in children. Manipulative reduction, immobilisation and fixation using a U-shaped plaster slab with the elbow in full extension. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(6):883–7.
    2. Brown IC, Zinar DM. Traumatic and iatrogenic neurological complications after supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 1995;15(4):440–3.
    3. Campbell CC, Waters PM, Emans JB, Kasser JR, Millis MB. Neurovascular injury and displacement in type III supracondylar humerus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 1995;15(1):47–52.
    4. Schoenecker PL, Delgado E, Rotman M, Sicard GA, Capelli AM. Pulseless arm in association with totally displaced supracondylar fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(6):410–5.
    5. Shaw BA, Kasser JR, Emans JB, Rand FF. Management of vascular injuries in displaced supracondylar humerus fractures without arteriography. J Orthop Trauma. 1990;4(1):25–9.
    6. Mangwani J, Nadarajah R, Paterson JM. Supracondylar humeral fractures in children: ten years' experience in a teaching hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(3):362–5.
    7. Nacht JL, Ecker ML, Chung SM, Lotke PA, Das M. Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children treated by closed reduction and percutaneous pinning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983(177):203–9.
    8. Agus H, Kalenderer O, Kayali C. Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning results in children with supracondylar humerus Rahimi Shourin H et al. Razavi Int J Med. 2014;2(3):e19986 5 fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 1999;33:18–22.
    9. Pirone AM, Graham HK, Krajbich JI. Management of displaced extension-type supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(5):641–50.
    10. Gerardi JA, Houkom JA, Mack GR. Pediatric update #10. Treatment of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children by closed reduction and percutaneous pinning. Orthop Rev. 1989;18(10):1089–95.
    11. Farnsworth CL, Silva PD, Mubarak SJ. Etiology of supracondylar humerus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 1998;18(1):38–42.
    12. Flynn JC, Matthews JG, Benoit RL. Blind pinning of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Sixteen years' experience with long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56(2):263–72.
    13. Walloe A, Egund N, Eikelund L. Supracondylar fracture of the humerus in children: review of closed and open reduction leading to a proposal for treatment. Injury. 1985;16(5):296–9.
    14. Mehserle WL, Meehan PL. Treatment of the displaced supracondylar fracture of the humerus (type III) with closed reduction and percutaneous cross-pin fixation. J Pediatr Orthop. 1991;11(6):705–11.
    15. Gupta N, Kay RM, Leitch K, Femino JD, Tolo VT, Skaggs DL. Effect of surgical delay on perioperative complications and need for open reduction in supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2004;24(3):245–8.
    16. Mehlman CT, Strub WM, Roy DR, Wall EJ, Crawford AH. The effect of surgical timing on the perioperative complications of treatment of supracondylar humeral fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(3):323–7.
    17. Leet AI, Frisancho J, Ebramzadeh E. Delayed treatment of type 3 supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002;22(2):203–7.
    18. Iyengar SR, Hoffinger SA, Townsend DR. Early versus delayed reduction and pinning of type III displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: a comparative study. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13(1):51–5.
    19. Bryan RS, Morrey BF. Extensive posterior exposure of the elbow. A triceps-sparing approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982(166):188–92.
    20. Bryan RS, Morrey BF. Fractures of the distal humerus. In: Morrey BF editor. In The Elbow and Its Disorders.. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1985. pp. 302–39.
    21. DeLee JC, Green DP, Wilkins KE. Fractures and dislocations of the elbow. In: Rockwood CA, Green DP editors. In Fractures in Adults.. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott; 1984. pp. 559–652.
    22. Kasser JR, Richards K, Millis M. The triceps-dividing approach to open reduction of complex distal humeral fractures in adolescents: a Cybex evaluation of triceps function and motion. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10(1):93–6.
    23. McKee M, Jupiter J, Toh CL, Wilson L, Colton C, Karras KK. Reconstruction after malunion and nonunion of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus. Methods and results in 13 adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(4):614–21.
    24. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.
    25. Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(2):154–62.
    26. McKee MD, Wilson TL, Winston L, Schemitsch EH, Richards RR. Functional outcome following surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humeral fractures through a posterior approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82-A(12):1701–7.
    27. Celiker O, Pestilci FI, Tuzuner M. Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: analysis of the results in 142 patients. J Orthop Trauma. 1990;4(3):265–9.
    28. Landin LA. Fracture patterns in children. Analysis of 8,682 fractures with special reference to incidence, etiology and secular changes in a Swedish urban population 1950-1979. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1983;202:1–109.
    29. Otsuka NY, Kasser JR. Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus in Children. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1997;5(1):19–26.
    30. Kurer MH, Regan MW. Completely displaced supracondylar fracture of the humerus in children. A review of 1708 comparable cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990(256):205–14.
    31. Reitman RD, Waters P, Millis M. Open reduction and internal fixation for supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21(2):157–61.
    32. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death 1995- 96 report. Who operates when? 2004. Available from: http://www. ncepod.org.uk/2004report/PDF_chapters/Overview_Chapter. pdf.
    33. Waddell JP, Hatch J, Richards R. Supracondylar fractures of the humerus--results of surgical treatment. J Trauma. 1988;28(12):1615–21.
    34. McKee MD, Jupiter JB. Trauma to the adult elbow and fractures of the distal humerus. In: Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, Trafton PG editors. Skeletal Trauma: Fractures, Dislocations, Ligamentous Injuries.. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1998. pp. 1455–522.
    35. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide.Boston: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute; 1993.