Pediatric distal both-bone forearm fractures treated with percutaneous pinning with or without ulna fixation: a retrospective cohort study from two centres.
Children
Fixation
Fracture
Percutaneous pinning
Radius
Ulnar
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Aug 2024
29 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
20
02
2024
accepted:
26
08
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
29
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study investigated the clinical and functional outcomes of children with distal both-bone forearm fractures treated by fixation of the radius only compared to fixation of both the radius and ulna. A total of 71 patients from two centres with distal both-bone forearm fractures (30 in the ulna-yes group, 41 in the ulna-no group) who underwent closed reduction and percutaneous pinning treatment were retrospectively analysed. Operation duration, number of fluoroscopic exposures, loss of reduction rate and angulation based on radiographic assessment were compared between the two groups. Evaluation of wrist function including Gartland-Werley Score and Mayo Wrist Score were compared at the last follow-up. Ulna angulation upon bone healing on the posteroanterior and the lateral plane of ulna-no group (6.11 ± 1.56°; 6.51 ± 1.69°) was significantly greater than that of ulna-yes group (4.49 ± 1.30°; 5.05 ± 2.18°) (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the loss of reduction rate between ulna-yes group (6.67%, 2/30) and the ulna-no group (4.88%, 2/41) (p > 0.05). At last follow-up, no significant difference was found between the Gartland-Werley Scores of the ulna-yes group (1.83 ± 3.25, range: 0-16) and ulna-no group (1.85 ± 2.72, range: 0-11.5) (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found between the Mayo Wrist Scores of the ulna-yes group (92.60 ± 6.20) and ulna-no group (92.15 ± 7.58) (p > 0.05). For distal both-bone forearm fractures in children, fixation of only the radius appears to be a viable method with equivalent clinical outcomes compared to fixation of both the radius and ulna.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39210474
doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07822-2
pii: 10.1186/s12891-024-07822-2
pmc: PMC11363665
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
683Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1951 Oct;33-A(4):895-907
pubmed: 14880544
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Feb 5;22(1):147
pubmed: 33546669
Arthroscopy. 2023 Jan;39(1):39-40
pubmed: 36543420
Children (Basel). 2022 Sep 28;9(10):
pubmed: 36291423
Med Glas (Zenica). 2021 Feb 01;18(1):208-215
pubmed: 33336564
Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018 Feb 11;6(2):330-335
pubmed: 29531598
Injury. 2023 Jul;54(7):110768
pubmed: 37210301
Musculoskelet Surg. 2021 Dec;105(3):225-234
pubmed: 33058085
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020 Mar;54(2):155-160
pubmed: 32254031
Acta Orthop. 2020 Feb;91(1):104-108
pubmed: 31680591
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Nov;104(7):1101-1105
pubmed: 30243674
Hand (N Y). 2022 May;17(3):512-518
pubmed: 32597713
Injury. 2017 Nov;48(11):2575-2581
pubmed: 28882374
Hand (N Y). 2021 May;16(3):332-337
pubmed: 31286791
Instr Course Lect. 2017 Feb 15;66:447-460
pubmed: 28594521
J Wrist Surg. 2021 Apr;10(2):111-115
pubmed: 33815945
Hand (N Y). 2020 May;15(3):418-421
pubmed: 30417702
Front Pediatr. 2023 Aug 24;11:1244704
pubmed: 37691775
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Jan;143(1):381-387
pubmed: 35064293
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Jan;34(1):489-497
pubmed: 37632546
BMJ Open. 2021 May 26;11(5):e045689
pubmed: 34039573