Efficacy comparison between plate fixation with in situ reinforcing ulnar nerve and anterior transposition for humeral intercondylar fracture

Jun Cai, Y. Qi, Xiaomin Gu
{"title":"Efficacy comparison between plate fixation with in situ reinforcing ulnar nerve and anterior transposition for humeral intercondylar fracture","authors":"Jun Cai, Y. Qi, Xiaomin Gu","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1001-8050.2019.07.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo investigate the clinical efficacy of plate fixation with in situ reinforcing ulnar nerve and anterior transposition by olecranon osteotomy approach in the treatment of type C2 and C3 humeral intercondylar fractures. \n \n \nMethods \nA retrospective case control study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 23 patients with humeral intercondylar fractures admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University from June 2014 to January 2017. There were 17 males and six females, aged 19-56 years, with an average of 41.2 years. According to AO classification, there were 15 patients with type C2 and eight with type C3. All patients were treated with plate internal fixation by olecranon osteotomy approach. The patients were divided into anterior group (11 patients) which was treated with ulnar nerve release anterior transposition and in situ reinforcing group (12 patients) which was treated with ulnar nerve release in situ. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, elbow flexion and extension range, elbow joint Mayo score, and excellent and good rate were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications were recorded. \n \n \nResults \nAll patients were followed up for 15-43 months, with an average of 26.7 months. All patients had no need of blood transfusion. There were no significant differences between anterior group and in situ reinforcing group in operation time [(219.1±15.1)minutes vs. (211.2±17.1)minutes], intraoperative blood loss [(263.6±35.3)ml vs. (237.5±25.6)ml] and fracture healing time [(18.2±2.4)weeks vs. (18.9±1.7)weeks] (P>0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in elbow flexion [(120.3±7.1)° vs. (120.3±4.1)°], straightness [(3.7±2.7)° vs. (4.1±2.4)°], Mayo score [(89.09±9.17)points vs. (86.67±10.29)points] and excellent and good rate [ 91% (10/12) vs. 83% (10/12)] (P>0.05). After operation, no complications such as infection, heterotopic ossification, ulnar neuritis, elbow valgus deformity, or internal fixation failure occurred. \n \n \nConclusions \nFor humeral intercondylar fracture, the plate fixation with in situ reinforcing ulnar nerve and anterior transposition by olecranon osteotomy approach both have advantages such as small surgical trauma, strong fixation, fewer complications, satisfactory recovery of elbow function. Ulnar nerve anterior transposition or not does not affect the occurrence of ulnar neuritis, and both can obtain satisfactory clinical efficacy. \n \n \nKey words: \nHumeral fractures; Intra-articular fractures; Fracture fixation, internal; Ulnar nerve","PeriodicalId":10161,"journal":{"name":"中华创伤杂志","volume":"35 1","pages":"638-643"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华创伤杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1001-8050.2019.07.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of plate fixation with in situ reinforcing ulnar nerve and anterior transposition by olecranon osteotomy approach in the treatment of type C2 and C3 humeral intercondylar fractures. Methods A retrospective case control study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 23 patients with humeral intercondylar fractures admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University from June 2014 to January 2017. There were 17 males and six females, aged 19-56 years, with an average of 41.2 years. According to AO classification, there were 15 patients with type C2 and eight with type C3. All patients were treated with plate internal fixation by olecranon osteotomy approach. The patients were divided into anterior group (11 patients) which was treated with ulnar nerve release anterior transposition and in situ reinforcing group (12 patients) which was treated with ulnar nerve release in situ. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, elbow flexion and extension range, elbow joint Mayo score, and excellent and good rate were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications were recorded. Results All patients were followed up for 15-43 months, with an average of 26.7 months. All patients had no need of blood transfusion. There were no significant differences between anterior group and in situ reinforcing group in operation time [(219.1±15.1)minutes vs. (211.2±17.1)minutes], intraoperative blood loss [(263.6±35.3)ml vs. (237.5±25.6)ml] and fracture healing time [(18.2±2.4)weeks vs. (18.9±1.7)weeks] (P>0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in elbow flexion [(120.3±7.1)° vs. (120.3±4.1)°], straightness [(3.7±2.7)° vs. (4.1±2.4)°], Mayo score [(89.09±9.17)points vs. (86.67±10.29)points] and excellent and good rate [ 91% (10/12) vs. 83% (10/12)] (P>0.05). After operation, no complications such as infection, heterotopic ossification, ulnar neuritis, elbow valgus deformity, or internal fixation failure occurred. Conclusions For humeral intercondylar fracture, the plate fixation with in situ reinforcing ulnar nerve and anterior transposition by olecranon osteotomy approach both have advantages such as small surgical trauma, strong fixation, fewer complications, satisfactory recovery of elbow function. Ulnar nerve anterior transposition or not does not affect the occurrence of ulnar neuritis, and both can obtain satisfactory clinical efficacy. Key words: Humeral fractures; Intra-articular fractures; Fracture fixation, internal; Ulnar nerve
尺骨神经原位强化钢板内固定与肱骨髁间骨折前路移位的疗效比较
目的探讨尺骨神经原位强化钢板内固定加鹰嘴截骨前方移位治疗C2、C3型肱骨髁间骨折的临床疗效。方法对2014年6月至2017年1月杭州师范大学附属医院收治的23例肱骨髁间骨折患者的临床资料进行回顾性病例对照研究。男17例,女6例,年龄19~56岁,平均41.2岁。根据AO分类,C2型患者15例,C3型患者8例。所有患者均采用鹰嘴截骨入路钢板内固定治疗。将患者分为前组(11例)和原位强化组(12例),前者采用尺神经松解术,后者采用前移位术。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、肘关节屈伸范围、肘关节Mayo评分及优良率。记录术后并发症。结果所有患者随访15~43个月,平均26.7个月。所有患者均无需输血。手术时间[(219.1±15.1)minvs.(211.2±17.1)min]与原位补强组比较无显著性差异,术中出血量[(263.6±35.3)mlvs.(237.5±25.6)ml]和骨折愈合时间[(18.2±2.4)周vs.(18.9±1.7)周](P>0.05),Mayo评分[(89.09±9.17)分vs.(86.67±10.29)分],优良率[91%(10/12)vs.83%(10/12)](P>0.05),术后无感染、异位骨化、尺神经炎、肘外翻畸形、内固定失败等并发症发生。结论对于肱骨髁间骨折,尺骨神经原位强化钢板内固定和鹰嘴截骨前路移位术具有手术创伤小、固定牢固、并发症少、肘功能恢复良好等优点。尺神经前移位与否不影响尺神经炎的发生,两者均能获得满意的临床疗效。关键词:肱骨骨折;关节内骨折;骨折内固定术;尺神经
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11327
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Trauma (International Standard Serial Publication Number: ISSN 1001-8050, Domestic Uniform Serial Publication Number: CN 50-1098/R) was founded in September 1985, which is the only high-level medical professional academic journal that can comprehensively and systematically reflect the achievements and development trends of China's traumatology medicine, and has a wide academic influence in China's traumatology medicine community. It has a wide range of academic influence in China's trauma medicine. Chinese Journal of Trauma is a source journal of China Science and Technology Paper Statistics, a source journal of China Science Citation Database (CSCD), a core journal of China Comprehensive Medicine and Health Care, a source journal of China Academic Journals Comprehensive Evaluation Database (CAJCED), a full-text journal of China Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), a core academic journal of China Center for Scientific Evaluation (RCCSE), a core academic journal of China Traumatology and Traumatology Center (CTC), a core academic journal of China Traumatology Center (RCCSE). RCCSE) core academic journals; Chinese Biomedical Journal Database (CMCC), Chinese Biomedical Journal Citation Database (CBJCED), China Journal Network (CJN), China Academic Journals (CD-ROM), Chinese Academic Journals Abstracts (Chinese Edition), Chemical Abstracts of the United States (CA), Index Copernicus of Poland (IC), and Japan Institute of Science and Technology Database (JICST), World Health Organization Western Pacific Region Medical Search (WPRIM) and Russian Journal of Abstracts (ΡЖ) included journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信