Mejía SD, Morales SR, Ciénega RMA, González PC

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 26-30
PDF size: 142.63 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The fractures of distal humerus present a world incidence of the 2%, stiff and painful joints are common consequences of these injuries. We used two surgical approaches for the treatment of these fractures, one with olecranon osteotomy and one with triceps split. Objective: To compare the functional results in patients with fractures AO type C treated surgically by means of both approaches. Materials and methods: A retrolective, observational, comparative study in patients with distal humerus fracture AO type C diagnosis. We used the elbow functional scale of our unit for measuring clinical status. We compared the results of consolidated fractures of patients from 18 to 65 years old treated with osteosynthesis in the period from March 2002 through February 2004. Results: Nineteen patients were included (11 women and 8 men), mean age of 49.3. Triceps split approach: t: 1 patient (8.4%) had excellent, 2 good (16.6%), 4 regular (33.4%) and 5 poor (41.6%) results; for the olecranon osteotomy approach 7 poor results were found (p = 0.2270 exact fisher’s test). Discussion: Were found clinically better functional outcome in patients treatment with of triceps split, was not found statistical significance this was because the size of the groups and the clinical scale score that was used in this unit. Conclusions: We recommend the utilization of the approach of triceps split by presenting better functional results.

REFERENCES

1. Loreto UN: Evaluación clínico funcional en pacientes con fractura compleja de codo, manejados quirúrgicamente. IMSS HTOLV 2000. TESIS.

2. Muller ME, Allgower M: Manual of internal fixation, tercera edición. Berlín, Springer Verlag Ibérica, 1993: 446-52.

3. Schatzker J: Tratamiento quirúrgico de las fracturas, Segunda edición. Buenos Aires Argentina. Panamericana, 1998: 97-115.

4. Arenas ZV: Fracturas de la epífisis distal humeral del adulto, resultados funcionales del tratamiento quirúrgico IMSS HTOLV 1992 TESIS.

5. Morrey BF: General deep approaches to the elbow posterior exposures. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 3: 6-9.

6. Contreras DJ: Fracturas complejas del codo. IMSS HTOLV 1993 TESIS.

7. Patterson DD: Abordajes posteriores de codo. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000; 1: 13-33.

8. Morrey BF: Traumatología del codo, 2da edición, Barcelona, Marban, 2000: 53-69.

9. McKee M, Wilson TL: Elbow extension strengh following of intrarticular distal humeral fractures. A comparison of triceps spliting versus olecranon osteotomy approaches. J Bone Joint surg Br 1999; 13: 279-80.

10. Robinson CM, Hill R: Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma 2003; 17: 38-47.

11. Pereles TR: Open reduction and internal fixation of the distal humerus functional outcome in the elderly. J Trauma Injury, Infection Critical Care 1997; 43: 574-8.

12. Nadim A, Keith W: Functional outcome following internal fixation of intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus (AO type C). Acta Ortopédica Belga 2004; 70: 118-22.

13. Ziran BH, Smith WR: A true triceps-splitting approach for treatment of distal humerus fractures: A preliminary report. J Trauma 2005; 58(1): 70-5.

14. Campuzano CJJ: Fracturas de la epífisis del húmero en adultos. IMSS HTOLV 1986 TESIS.

15. Valero GFS, Mejía RC: Tratamiento de las fracturas del extremo distal del húmero en adultos, mediante reducción abierta y osteosíntesis bajo los principios AO. Rev Mex Ortop Traum 1999: 13(4): 322-35.

16. Castañeda LP, Decanini MA, Cassis ZN: Fracturas del extremo distal del húmero en adultos. Experiencia en el Centro Médico ABC durante los últimos 5 años. An Méd Hosp ABC 2004; 4(1): 12-14.

17. Góngora LJ, De la Torre GDM, Salazar PR: Tratamiento quirúrgico de fracturas supracondíleas del húmero en adultos. Experiencia en el hospital Juárez de México en tres años. Rev Hosp Juárez Méx 2005; 72(3): 88-92.