Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) for distal humeral fractures: a cadaveric study and first clinical application.
Articular fracture
Cadaveric study
Distal humeral fractures
MIPO technique
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Mar 2023
18 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
22
02
2022
accepted:
23
01
2023
entrez:
19
3
2023
pubmed:
20
3
2023
medline:
22
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The indication for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) may include articular fractures depending on the fracture pattern. The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the MIPO technique for extra- and intra-articular distal humeral fractures. The feasibility of the MIPO technique was assessed on 8 cadaveric elbows and 2 clinical cases. The four surgical approaches tested included a 20-mm ulnar incision, a 20-mm dorsoradial incision, and two incisions for olecranon osteotomy (A and B). Surgical incision A was 40 mm on the osteotomy level of the olecranon, and surgical incision B was an extension of the radial incision toward the osteotomy of the olecranon (80 mm). The four approaches were tested on 4 extra-articular (AO 13 A3) fractures and 4 intra-articular (AO 13 C3) fractures. Reduction and plate fixation of all distal humeral fractures (8 cadaveric) with and without osteotomy was feasible. However, when using approach B, the soft tissue tension is reduced due to the wider incision. Nevertheless, both approaches A and B showed the same adequate intra-articular fracture control and reduction. The MIPO technique for reduction and plate fixation in distal humeral fractures is feasible. As a feasibility study, this study cannot be clearly classified into a level of evidence. It corresponds most closely to level IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The indication for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) may include articular fractures depending on the fracture pattern. The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the MIPO technique for extra- and intra-articular distal humeral fractures.
METHODS
METHODS
The feasibility of the MIPO technique was assessed on 8 cadaveric elbows and 2 clinical cases. The four surgical approaches tested included a 20-mm ulnar incision, a 20-mm dorsoradial incision, and two incisions for olecranon osteotomy (A and B). Surgical incision A was 40 mm on the osteotomy level of the olecranon, and surgical incision B was an extension of the radial incision toward the osteotomy of the olecranon (80 mm). The four approaches were tested on 4 extra-articular (AO 13 A3) fractures and 4 intra-articular (AO 13 C3) fractures.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Reduction and plate fixation of all distal humeral fractures (8 cadaveric) with and without osteotomy was feasible. However, when using approach B, the soft tissue tension is reduced due to the wider incision. Nevertheless, both approaches A and B showed the same adequate intra-articular fracture control and reduction.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The MIPO technique for reduction and plate fixation in distal humeral fractures is feasible.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
As a feasibility study, this study cannot be clearly classified into a level of evidence. It corresponds most closely to level IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36934262
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06189-0
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06189-0
pmc: PMC10024368
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
206Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Injury. 2005 Apr;36(4):530-8
pubmed: 15755436
Ann Anat. 1992 Jun;174(3):185-95
pubmed: 1503236
Acta Ortop Bras. 2014;22(6):300-3
pubmed: 25538474
Acta Orthop Scand. 1972;43(6):479-90
pubmed: 4651928
Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2004;62(1-2):18-23
pubmed: 15517853
Orthopade. 1997 Jun;26(5):408-421
pubmed: 28246846
Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Apr;39(4):426-432
pubmed: 29359596
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Dec;22(3):299-303
pubmed: 25550006
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Dec;82(12):1701-7
pubmed: 11130643
J Trauma. 2005 Jan;58(1):70-5
pubmed: 15674153
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000 Jul-Aug;8(4):211-6
pubmed: 10951109
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Feb;135(2):235-242
pubmed: 25552395
Indian J Orthop. 2021 May 09;55(Suppl 2):283-303
pubmed: 34306542
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Jun;131(6):747-51
pubmed: 21069365
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Jan;21(1):126-35
pubmed: 22014615
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Jun;(166):188-92
pubmed: 7083671
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2017 Apr;29(2):115-124
pubmed: 27921119
Orthop Clin North Am. 2000 Jan;31(1):91-101
pubmed: 10629335
Injury. 2001 Dec;32 Suppl 3:SC48-54
pubmed: 11888194
Injury. 2017 Mar;48(3):615-620
pubmed: 28109556
Int Orthop. 2017 Sep;41(9):1757-1762
pubmed: 28577034
Injury. 2007 Mar;38(3):365-70
pubmed: 17241634
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2009 Feb;35(1):35-9
pubmed: 26814529
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Mar 18;21(1):176
pubmed: 32188447