Study of Complex Supracondylar Humerus Fracture and its Functional Outcomes
Creators
- 1. Associate Professor, Dep of Orthopaedics, Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences , Dahanu, Palghar, Maharashtra, 401606
Description
Introduction: The fractures, specially upper limb, are frequent among children due to their nature of behaviour. Emergency intervention is usually required. There are two types of managements that are given. Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Kirschner wire (K-wire), is used as intervention. There are debates regarding the efficacy of the managements. This study also analyzed the other parameters associated with cosmetic and duration of these interventions. Aims and Objectives: This study intends to find out the comparison between the clinical outcome of K-wire and ORIF in terms of efficacy, duration to fracture union and other related findings. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted by extracting information and records from the hospital who had supracondylar humerus fracture and were given either K-wire or ORIF management. The patients were classified into 2 groups, namely, those patients who were managed with multiple Kirschner wire (K-wire) and those who were managed with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation. After the operation, the patients were followed up after every after 3 weeks of their surgery. At the final follow up (which was about 10 to 14 weeks as per individual patient’s requirement), range of motion was tested and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The study has found that the patients whose received K – wire management had significantly lower follow-up time (p<0.05) and duration of surgery (p<0.05). The study further pointed out that the cosmetic outcome was significantly satisfactory (p<0.05) among the K-wire group as compared to ORIF group. Conclusion: The study has concluded that the clinical outcome of both the managements are statistically similar. The acceptable and poor cosmetic outcome between the two groups are insignificant but there is significant difference (p<0.05) between the two groups in case of satisfactory outcome. The study also concluded that the follow up time and mean duration of surgery is significantly less if the patient is managed by K-wire as compared to the patients receiving ORIF management.
Abstract (English)
Introduction: The fractures, specially upper limb, are frequent among children due to their nature of behaviour. Emergency intervention is usually required. There are two types of managements that are given. Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Kirschner wire (K-wire), is used as intervention. There are debates regarding the efficacy of the managements. This study also analyzed the other parameters associated with cosmetic and duration of these interventions. Aims and Objectives: This study intends to find out the comparison between the clinical outcome of K-wire and ORIF in terms of efficacy, duration to fracture union and other related findings. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted by extracting information and records from the hospital who had supracondylar humerus fracture and were given either K-wire or ORIF management. The patients were classified into 2 groups, namely, those patients who were managed with multiple Kirschner wire (K-wire) and those who were managed with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation. After the operation, the patients were followed up after every after 3 weeks of their surgery. At the final follow up (which was about 10 to 14 weeks as per individual patient’s requirement), range of motion was tested and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The study has found that the patients whose received K – wire management had significantly lower follow-up time (p<0.05) and duration of surgery (p<0.05). The study further pointed out that the cosmetic outcome was significantly satisfactory (p<0.05) among the K-wire group as compared to ORIF group. Conclusion: The study has concluded that the clinical outcome of both the managements are statistically similar. The acceptable and poor cosmetic outcome between the two groups are insignificant but there is significant difference (p<0.05) between the two groups in case of satisfactory outcome. The study also concluded that the follow up time and mean duration of surgery is significantly less if the patient is managed by K-wire as compared to the patients receiving ORIF management.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue2,Article141.pdf
Files
(1.1 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:b7d1b276688769ce5c006d8260fc2d1c
|
1.1 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-02-10
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue2,Article141.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Hope, N., &Varacallo, M. Supracondylar Humerus Fractures. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/boo ks/NBK560933/ 2. Shenoy, P. M., Islam, A., & Puri, R.. Current Management of Paediatric Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus. Cureus. 2020. https:/ /doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8137 3. Sallay, P. I., Pedowitz, R. A., Mallon, W. J., Vandemark, R. M., Dalton, J. D., & Speer, K. P. Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 1997;6(1): 60–69. 4. Kumar, V. Fracture Supracondylar Humerus: A Review. Journal of Clinical and DiagnosticResearch. 2016. 5. Leitch, K. K., Kay, R. M., Femino, J. D., Tolo, V. T., Storer, S. K., & Skaggs, D. L. Treatment of multidirectionally unstable supracondylar humeral fractures in children. A modified Gartland type-IV fracture. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 2006;88(5): 980–985. 6. Shah, M., &Agashe, M. V. Supracondylar Humerus Fractures: Classification Based Treatment Algorithms. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2020;55(1): 68–80. 7. Teo, T. L., Schaeffer, E. K., Habib, E., Cherukupalli, A., Cooper, A. P., Aroojis, A., Sankar, W. N., Upasani, V. V., Carsen, S., Mulpuri, K., & Reilly, C. Assessing the reliability of the modified Gartland classification system for extension-type supracondylar humerus fractures. Journal of Children's Orthopaedics, 2019;13(6): 569–574. 8. Leung, S., Paryavi, E., Herman, M. J., Sponseller, P. D., & Abzug, J. M. Does the Modified Gartland Classification Clarify Decision Making? Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 2018;38(1): 22–26. 9. Randsborg, P.-H., &Sivertsen, E. A. [Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children]. Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening: Tidsskrift for PraktiskMedicin, NyRaekke, 2011;131(4): 349–352. 10. Goldflam, K. Evaluation and Treatment of the Elbow and Forearm Injuries in the Emergency Department. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, 2015;33(2): 409–421. 11. Abzug, J. M., & Herman, M. J. Management of Supracondylar Humerus Fractures in Children: Current Concepts. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2012;20(2): 69–77. 12. Pirone, A. M., Graham, H. K., & Krajbich, J. I. Management of displaced extension-type supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 1988;70(5): 641– 650. 13. Karapinar, L., Oztürk, H., Altay, T., &Köse, B. [Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning with three Kirschner wires in children with type III displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus]. ActaOrthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 2005;39(1): 23–29. 14. Oztürkmen, Y., Karamehmetoğlu, M., & Azboy, I. [Closed reduction and percutaneous lateral pin fixation in the treatment of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children]. ActaOrthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 2005;39(5): 396–403. 15. Yawar, B., Khan, M. N., Asim, A., Qureshi, A., Yawar, A., Faraz, A., McAdam, A., Mustafa, S., &Hanratty, B. Comparison of Lateral and Crossed K-wires for Paediatric Supracondylar Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Cureus, 2022;14(7): e27267. 16. Walmsley, P. J., Kelly, M. B., Robb, J. E., Annan, I. H., & Porter, D. E. Delay increases the need for open reduction of type-III supracondylar fractures of the humerus. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 2006;88(4): 528–530. 17. Yildirim, A. O., Unal, V. S., Oken, O. F., Gulcek, M., Ozsular, M., &Ucaner, A. Timing of surgical treatment for type III supracondylar humerus fractures in pediatric patients. Journal of Children's Orthopaedics, 2009;3(4): 265– 269. 18. Waikhom, S. Delayed Open Reduction and KWire Fixation of Widely Displaced Supracondylar Fractures of Humerus in Children using Medial Approach. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2016. 19. Mostafavi, H.R. and Spero, C. Crossed Pin Fixation of Displaced Supracondylar Humerus Fractures in Children. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, [online] 2000;376:56– 61. 20. Alcott, W. H., Bowden, B. W., & Miller, P. R. Displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: long-term follow-up of 69 patients. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 1977;76(12): 910– 915.