Distal humerus fracture in patients over 70 years of age: results of open reduction and internal fixation.
Distal humerus fracture
Geriatric trauma
Locked compression plate
Trauma
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
13
11
2019
accepted:
15
10
2020
pubmed:
6
11
2020
medline:
8
1
2022
entrez:
5
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to the complexity of distal humerusfractures and often poor bone quality in elderly patients, these entities remain a challenge. However, because of a high rate of complications related to total elbow prostheses, reconstruction of distal humerus fractures should still be considered a therapeutic option, also in the elderly patient. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the clinical outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation and to evaluate whether the results justify reconstruction even in elderly patients. We hypothesized that despite advanced age, reasonable clinical results can be achieved, using a standardized surgical technique and aftertreatment protocol for the treatment of distal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Between 2004 and 2012, 30 patients with a mean age of 78 years at the time of injury with a recent distal humerus fracture were evaluated. All patients underwent the identical aftertreatment protocol with no weight bearing for 6 weeks and weekly increasing range of motion. Follow-up rate was 90%. 22 patients were treated with double plate, 4 with single plate, and 1 with screw fixation only. Patients were evaluated based on clinical criteria. Primary outcome measures were Mayo Elbow Performance Score, VAS and joint range of motion, secondary was radiological evaluation. After a mean follow-up period of 3.8 years (min. 1 year, max. 9 years, SD ± 2), the average range of motion was flexion of 127° (min. 100°; max. 150°; SD ± 16.5) and average loss of extension of 20.9° (min. 5°; max. 40°; SD ± 11). Average pronation and supination was 68.3° (min. 0°; max. 90°; SD ± 25.3) and 75.3° (min. 0°; max. 90°; SD ± 19.7), respectively. Average Mayo Elbow Performance (MEPS) score was 88.7 (min. 60; max. 100; SD ± 12.1). 6 patients developed heterotopic ossification without significant effect on the clinical outcome. 7 patients had radiological evidence of at least partial non-union with one requiring revision, 2 discrete hardware dislocations were treated conservatively. There were no infections in the presented cohort. Our results regarding the surgical approach showed significantly higher patient satisfaction scores in the osteotomy group, compared to the group with Triceps-On Approach (PTOA). The present data support indication for open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) even in the elderly patient. Advanced age should not be seen as a contraindication for ORIF of fractures of the distal humerus. Although the rate of complications is higher than in younger patients, complications such as non-union are often asymptomatic, patient satisfaction scores are high, and the possible devastating complications of failed elbow replacement can be evaded. IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Due to the complexity of distal humerusfractures and often poor bone quality in elderly patients, these entities remain a challenge. However, because of a high rate of complications related to total elbow prostheses, reconstruction of distal humerus fractures should still be considered a therapeutic option, also in the elderly patient. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the clinical outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation and to evaluate whether the results justify reconstruction even in elderly patients. We hypothesized that despite advanced age, reasonable clinical results can be achieved, using a standardized surgical technique and aftertreatment protocol for the treatment of distal humerus fractures in elderly patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Between 2004 and 2012, 30 patients with a mean age of 78 years at the time of injury with a recent distal humerus fracture were evaluated. All patients underwent the identical aftertreatment protocol with no weight bearing for 6 weeks and weekly increasing range of motion. Follow-up rate was 90%. 22 patients were treated with double plate, 4 with single plate, and 1 with screw fixation only. Patients were evaluated based on clinical criteria. Primary outcome measures were Mayo Elbow Performance Score, VAS and joint range of motion, secondary was radiological evaluation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After a mean follow-up period of 3.8 years (min. 1 year, max. 9 years, SD ± 2), the average range of motion was flexion of 127° (min. 100°; max. 150°; SD ± 16.5) and average loss of extension of 20.9° (min. 5°; max. 40°; SD ± 11). Average pronation and supination was 68.3° (min. 0°; max. 90°; SD ± 25.3) and 75.3° (min. 0°; max. 90°; SD ± 19.7), respectively. Average Mayo Elbow Performance (MEPS) score was 88.7 (min. 60; max. 100; SD ± 12.1). 6 patients developed heterotopic ossification without significant effect on the clinical outcome. 7 patients had radiological evidence of at least partial non-union with one requiring revision, 2 discrete hardware dislocations were treated conservatively. There were no infections in the presented cohort. Our results regarding the surgical approach showed significantly higher patient satisfaction scores in the osteotomy group, compared to the group with Triceps-On Approach (PTOA).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The present data support indication for open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) even in the elderly patient. Advanced age should not be seen as a contraindication for ORIF of fractures of the distal humerus. Although the rate of complications is higher than in younger patients, complications such as non-union are often asymptomatic, patient satisfaction scores are high, and the possible devastating complications of failed elbow replacement can be evaded.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33151362
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03664-4
pii: 10.1007/s00402-020-03664-4
pmc: PMC8732916
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
157-164Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s).
Références
J Trauma. 2005 Jan;58(1):62-9
pubmed: 15674152
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Mar;16 Suppl 2:S73-9
pubmed: 15517186
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Jan;17(1):38-47
pubmed: 12499966
J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Apr;28(4):222-6
pubmed: 23899767
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Jul;(292):26-36
pubmed: 8519119
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2019 Apr 25;32(4):350-354
pubmed: 31027412
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Nov;(332):200-8
pubmed: 8913164
Exp Ther Med. 2013 Jul;6(1):147-151
pubmed: 23935736
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Jun;137(6):761-769
pubmed: 28391430
Z Orthop Unfall. 2018 Feb;156(1):30-40
pubmed: 29325184
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Aug 5;139(3):W-W61
pubmed: 12899607
Orthop Clin North Am. 2000 Jan;31(1):145-54
pubmed: 10629339
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jan;19(1):2-9
pubmed: 19574065
J Orthop Trauma. 2002 Aug;16(7):503-6
pubmed: 12172281
Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):691-7
pubmed: 16814787
Acta Orthop Scand. 1972;43(6):479-90
pubmed: 4651928
J Orthop Trauma. 2011 May;25(5):259-65
pubmed: 21464746
J Orthop Res. 2008 Jun;26(6):778-84
pubmed: 18203185
JBJS Rev. 2017 Jul;5(7):e4
pubmed: 28696952
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Jun;58(4):453-8
pubmed: 773941
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Nov;99(7):771-7
pubmed: 24119369
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Aug;17(7):473-80
pubmed: 12902784
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 Oct;24(7):1123-31
pubmed: 23921559
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 May;(434):222-30
pubmed: 15864057
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Jul;33(7):361-365
pubmed: 31220002
Eur J Epidemiol. 1998 Feb;14(2):159-64
pubmed: 9556175
J Trauma. 1997 Oct;43(4):578-84
pubmed: 9356051
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Sep;76(5):793-6
pubmed: 8083271
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Jul;17(6):463-5
pubmed: 12843735
J Orthop Trauma. 2004 May-Jun;18(5):286-93
pubmed: 15105750
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Sep;83(7):974-8
pubmed: 11603536
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jan;88(1):46-54
pubmed: 16391249
J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Jan;34(1):176-90
pubmed: 19121746
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 May;72(3):362-5
pubmed: 2341427
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):646-51
pubmed: 19362859
Lancet. 1959 Mar 14;1(7072):531-6
pubmed: 13642800
Chin Med J (Engl). 2013 Jun;126(12):2337-42
pubmed: 23786950
J Trauma. 2006 Oct;61(4):889-92
pubmed: 17033557