Conservative versus surgical treatment of Gartland type 2 supracondylar humeral fractures: What can help us choosing?
Elbow fractures
Gartland type 2 treatment
Pediatric orthopaedics
Pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures
Pediatric trauma
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0972-978X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101233220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
03
10
2018
accepted:
02
12
2018
entrez:
22
1
2019
pubmed:
22
1
2019
medline:
22
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures (PSHF) are most common elbow fractures among children and adolescents. While there is substantial agreement on treating type 1 and type 3 fractures (conservatively and surgically, respectively), the debate on optimal treatment of Gartland type 2 fractures is still open.We wanted to review our cases, analyzing outcomes and seeking for parameters that could help surgeons treating these injuries. We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients treated with reduction and casting (group A) and matched to 38 patients treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pining (CRPP, group B) for Gartland type 2 fractures between 2009 and 2013. At a mean follow-up of more than 6 years patients were analyzed by an accurate clinical exam and evaluation scales. Radiographic parameters at time of cast or pins removal were studied too. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical exam and evaluation scales between groups. Two patients in group A developed a cubitus varus deformity and one patient in group B had a superficial pin-tract infection. Baumann angle (BA) was out of normal range in two cases of conservative group and anterior humeral line (AHL) bisected capitellum in 42.1% of patients in group A and 73.2% in group B ( It is reasonable to expect satisfactory outcomes both after conservative and surgical treatment of type 2 fractures, if cornerstones of both treatments are applied. Parameters that should be focused are probably two: complications (2 cases of cubitus varus in group A versus one superificial pin-tract infections in group B) and the better trend in surgical group in regards to loss of flexion and hyperextension of the affected elbow, likely related to the other notable datum, that is the percentage of cases in which AHL bisects capitellum. We think that, in absence of vascolonervous lesions and important swelling, BA and AHL are the most important parameters that can help us choosing the optimal treatment, as clarified in the algorithm we developed. Level III - retrospective comparative study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures (PSHF) are most common elbow fractures among children and adolescents. While there is substantial agreement on treating type 1 and type 3 fractures (conservatively and surgically, respectively), the debate on optimal treatment of Gartland type 2 fractures is still open.We wanted to review our cases, analyzing outcomes and seeking for parameters that could help surgeons treating these injuries.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients treated with reduction and casting (group A) and matched to 38 patients treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pining (CRPP, group B) for Gartland type 2 fractures between 2009 and 2013. At a mean follow-up of more than 6 years patients were analyzed by an accurate clinical exam and evaluation scales. Radiographic parameters at time of cast or pins removal were studied too.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences in clinical exam and evaluation scales between groups. Two patients in group A developed a cubitus varus deformity and one patient in group B had a superficial pin-tract infection. Baumann angle (BA) was out of normal range in two cases of conservative group and anterior humeral line (AHL) bisected capitellum in 42.1% of patients in group A and 73.2% in group B (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
It is reasonable to expect satisfactory outcomes both after conservative and surgical treatment of type 2 fractures, if cornerstones of both treatments are applied. Parameters that should be focused are probably two: complications (2 cases of cubitus varus in group A versus one superificial pin-tract infections in group B) and the better trend in surgical group in regards to loss of flexion and hyperextension of the affected elbow, likely related to the other notable datum, that is the percentage of cases in which AHL bisects capitellum. We think that, in absence of vascolonervous lesions and important swelling, BA and AHL are the most important parameters that can help us choosing the optimal treatment, as clarified in the algorithm we developed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III - retrospective comparative study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30662234
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2018.12.001
pii: S0972-978X(18)30448-3
pmc: PMC6324759
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
31-35Références
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001 Jan;10(1):63-7
pubmed: 11269814
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001 Apr;10(2):131-7
pubmed: 11360779
J Orthop Sci. 2001;6(4):312-5
pubmed: 11479758
J Pediatr Orthop. 2001 Sep-Oct;21(5):680-8
pubmed: 11521042
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Sep;83-A(9):1358-69
pubmed: 11568199
J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Jul-Aug;22(4):431-9
pubmed: 12131436
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1959 Aug;109(2):145-54
pubmed: 13675986
J Pediatr Orthop. 1992 Sep-Oct;12(5):636-9
pubmed: 1517426
J Pediatr Orthop. 2004 Jul-Aug;24(4):380-4
pubmed: 15205619
J Pediatr Orthop. 2007 Mar;27(2):181-6
pubmed: 17314643
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007 Apr;15(1):12-4
pubmed: 17429110
Orthop Clin North Am. 2008 Apr;39(2):163-71, v
pubmed: 18374807
J Pediatr Orthop. 2008 Mar;28(2):139-41
pubmed: 18388704
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 May;90(5):1121-32
pubmed: 18451407
Injury. 2009 Jun;40(6):625-30
pubmed: 19394928
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2008 Dec;1(3-4):190-6
pubmed: 19468905
J Pediatr Orthop. 2009 Oct-Nov;29(7):704-8
pubmed: 20104149
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2010 Jul;19(4):298-303
pubmed: 20431491
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012 May;20(5):320-7
pubmed: 22553104
J Pediatr Orthop. 2012 Oct-Nov;32(7):675-81
pubmed: 22955530
J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Aug;27(8):457-61
pubmed: 23187157
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jan 2;95(1):28-34
pubmed: 23405411
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2014 Jan;23(1):93-9
pubmed: 24201071
J Pediatr Orthop. 2014 Oct-Nov;34(7):691-7
pubmed: 24590332
Int Orthop. 2015 Nov;39(11):2287-96
pubmed: 26311512
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2016 Mar;25(2):159-64
pubmed: 26588833
J Pediatr Orthop. 2018 Jan;38(1):22-26
pubmed: 26974527
Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:385-97
pubmed: 27049207
Injury. 2016 Oct;47(10):2252-2257
pubmed: 27432464
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Oct;27(5):455-461
pubmed: 27936484
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jun;(219):174-84
pubmed: 3581569
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974 Mar;56(2):263-72
pubmed: 4375679
Radiology. 1978 Jul;128(1):145-50
pubmed: 663200
J Pediatr Orthop. 1994 Jul-Aug;14(4):466-70
pubmed: 8077429
J Pediatr Orthop. 1996 Jan-Feb;16(1):104-6
pubmed: 8747365
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997 Jul-Aug;6(4):405-9
pubmed: 9285883
J Pediatr Orthop. 1998 Jan-Feb;18(1):38-42
pubmed: 9449099
J Pediatr Orthop. 1998 Jul-Aug;18(4):441-4
pubmed: 9661848