header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

DISTAL HUMERAL FRACTURE FIXATION – RESULTS FROM GENERAL ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS



Abstract

Purpose: Distal humeral fractures are often difficult injuries to treat. We hypothesise that more complex distal humeral fractures have unacceptable functional outcomes due to multi-factorial reasons.

Methods: 42 patients with AO/ASIF type B and C fractures of the distal humerus who were treated with open reduction and internal fixation over a six year period were included in the study. All patients were from a single district general hospital. 37 (88%) were clinically, radiologically, and functionally assessed for this study, with the remainder either lost to follow-up or expired.

Results: There were 21 type B and 16 type C fractures, all managed by open reduction and internal fixation. Various fixation techniques were utilised. These were performed by consultant surgeons in 14 cases and by surgeons in training in 23 cases. Average follow up was 38 months (range 22–54 months). The arc of elbow motion was 94 degrees (range 58–130), with an average extension deficit of 28 degrees (range 20–55) and an average flexion deficit of 32 degrees (range 15–45). The average arc of forearm rotation was 136 degrees (range 45–140), with an average supination of 68 (range 35–85) and an average pronation of 72 (range 45–90). The complications (n=20/37) included superficial skin infection (n=4), ulnar nerve neurapraxia (n=3), non-union of the humerus fracture (n=2), non-union of olecranon osteotomy site (n=1), intra-articular screw placement (n=1), loosened plate (n=1), loose/backed out screw (n=2), fixed flexion deformity (n=4) and mild elbow instability (n=2). Second surgery was performed in 24% (n=9/37), revision of metal work (n=2), bone grafting (n=2), anterior capsulectomy (n=4), and removal of screw (n=1).

Conclusions: Fractures of the distal humerus are often more complex than appreciated, and challenging to treat, with respect to fracture union and functional outcome. A generalist practice appears adequate for achieving bony union, but inadequate for obtaining low complication rates and functional outcomes. Our data suggest that such injuries may constitute a fracture group requiring the acute intervention by centres that have specific sub-specialisation and adequate rehabilitation facilities

Correspondence should be addressed to BESS c/o BOA, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE