A prospective randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing medial and lateral entry pinning with lateral entry pinning for percutaneous fixation of displaced extension type supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Debasis Sinha Roy³  Debasish Saha²  Abhijan Maity¹ 

[1] c/o Mr. Kalipada Maity, Bhatchala (Near Banka Bridge), PO Sripally Dist., Burdwan, West Bengal, India PIN-713103;Department of Anaesthesiology, Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal, India;Department of Orthopaedics, Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

关键词: Percutaneous fixation;    Children;    Humerus;    Supracondylar fractures;   

Others  :  823225
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-799X-7-6

 received in 2011-06-20, accepted in 2012-02-15,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Objective

To compare the efficacy of medial and lateral entry pinning with lateral entry pinning for percutaneous fixation of displaced (Gartland type II and type III) extension type supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children.

Methods

The study was a single center, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Between October 2007 and September 2010, 160 patients who satisfy the inclusion and exclusion criterias were enrolled in the study, with 80 patients in each group. All the percutaneous pinning was done according to a uniform standardized technique. The patients were re-evaluated as outpatients at three weeks, six weeks and three months after the surgery. At three months follow-up visit, following informations were recorded as outcome measures: (i) Carrying angle (deg) (ii) passive range of elbow motion (deg) (iii) Flynn's criteria for grading, based on the loss of carrying angle and loss of total range of elbow motion. (iv) Baumann angle (deg) (v) Change in Baumann angle (deg) between the Intraoperative radiographs after the surgery and radiographs at three months follow-up visit (vi) loss of reduction grading, based on the change in the Baumann angle.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to base-line characteristics, withdrawals and complication rate. At three months follow-up visit, patients were evaluated by recording the various outcome measures. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the various outcome measures such as carrying angle, passive range of elbow motion, Flynn grading, Baumann angle, change in the Baumann angle and loss of reduction grading.

Conclusions

If a uniform standardized operative technique is followed in each method, then the result of both the percutaneous fixation methods will be same in terms of safety and efficacy.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Maity et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Otsuka NY, Kasser JR: Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1997, 5:19-26.
• [2]Beaty JH, Kasser JR: Fractures about the elbow. Instr Course Lect 1995, 44:199-215.
• [3]Boyd HB, Altenberg AR: Fractures about the elbow in children. Arch Surg 1944, 49:213.
• [4]Gartland JJ: Management of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1959, 109:145-154.
• [5]Mehlman CT, Crawford AH, McMillion TL, Roy DR: Operative treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: the Cincinnati experience. Acta Orthop Belg 1996, 62(Suppl 1):41-50.
• [6]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, 56:263-272.
• [7]Arino VL, Llurch EE, Ramriez AM, Ferrer J, Rodriguez L, Baixauli F: Percutaneous fixation of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977, 59:914-916.
• [8]Chai KK: A Prospective study on supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: comparing the results of closed manipulation and plaster cast with closed manipulation and percutaneous cross K wiring for the treatment of displaced fractures. Master Thesis: University of Malaya 2000. PMID:11200043
• [9]Swenson AL: The treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus By Kirschner-wire transfixion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1948, 30:993-997.
• [10]Casiano E: Reduction and fixation by pinning "banderillero" style-fractures of the humerus at the elbow in children. Mil Med 1960, 125:262-264.
• [11]Skaggs DL, Hale JM, Bassett J, Kaminsky C, Kay RM, Tolo VT: Operative treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. The consequences of pin placement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001, 83:735-740. PMID:11379744
• [12]Lyons JP, Ashley E, Hoffer MM: Ulnar nerve palsies after percutaneous crosspinning of supracondylar fractures in children's elbows. J Pediatr Orthop 1998, 18:43-45. PMID:9449100
• [13]Rasool MN: Ulnar nerve injury after K-wire fixation of supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop 1998, 18:686-690. PMID:9746427
• [14]Gordon JE, Patton CM, Luhmann SJ, Bassett GS, Schoenecker PL: Fracture stability after pinning of displaced supracondylar distal humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop 2001, 21:313-318. PMID: 11371812
• [15]Lee SS, Mahar AT, Miesen D, Newton PO: Displaced pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures: biomechanical analysis of percutaneous pinning techniques. J Pediatr Orthop 2002, 22:440-443. PMID: 12131437
• [16]Zionts LE, McKellop HA, Hathaway R: Torsional strength of pin configurations used to fix supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994, 76:253-256. PMID: 8113261
• [17]Kallio PE, Foster BK, Paterson DC: Difficult supracondylar elbow fractures in children: analysis of percutaneous pinning technique. J Pediatr Orthop 1992, 12:11-15. PMID: 1732288
• [18]Davis RT, Gorczyca JT, Pugh K: Supracondylar humerus fractures in children. Comparison of operative treatment methods. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000, 376:49-55. PMID: 10906857
• [19]Green DW, Widmann RF, Frank JS, Gardner MJ: Low incidence of ulnar nerve injury with crossed pin placement for pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures using a mini-open technique. J Orthop Trauma 2005, 19:158-163. PMID:15758668
• [20]Aronson DD, Prager BI: Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: a modified technique for closed pinning. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987, 219:174. PMID: 3581569
• [21]Williamson DM, Coates CJ, Miller RK, Cole WG: Normal characteristics of the Baumann (humerocapitellar) angle: an aid in assessment of supracondylar fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 1992, 12:636-639. PMID: 1517426
• [22]Skaggs DL, Cluck MW, Mostofi A, Flynn JM, Kay RM: Lateral-entry pin fixation in the management of supracondylar fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86:702-707. PMID: 15069133
• [23]Foead A, Penafort R, Saw A, Sengupta S: Comparison of two methods of percutaneous pin fixation in displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2004, 12:76-82. PMID: 15237126
• [24]Topping RE, Blanco JS, Davis TJ: Clinical evaluation of crossed-pin versus lateral-pin fixation in displaced supracondylar humerus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 1995, 15:435-439. PMID:7560029
• [25]Shamsuddin SA, Penafort R, Sharaf I: Crossed-pin versus lateral-pin fixation in pediatric supracondylar fractures. Med J Malaysia 2001, 56(Suppl D):38-44. PMID: 14569765
• [26]Kocher MS, Kasser JR, Waters PM, Bae D, Snyder BD, Hresko MT, Hedequist D, Karlin L, Kim YJ, Murray MM, Millis MB, Emans JB, Dichtel L, Matheney T, Lee BM: Lateral entry compared with medial and lateral entry pin fixation for completely displaced supracondylar humeral fractures in children. A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:706-712.
• [27]Brauer CA, Lee BM, Bae DS, Waters PM, Kocher MS: A systematic review of medial and lateral entry pinning versus lateral entry pinning for supracondylar fractures of the humerus. J Pediatr Orthop 2007, 27:181-186. PMID: 17314643