Cargando…

Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation

BACKGROUND: Implant for fixation of neglected fracture lateral condyle humerus remains an issue of controversy. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcome of fixation with Kirschner wire (K-wire) and with cancellous screw (CS) in neglected fracture lateral condyle humerus. MATERIALS A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ranjan, Rahul, Sinha, Abhinav, Asif, Naiyer, Ifthekar, Syed, Kumar, Ashish, Chand, Suresh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30078903
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_319_16
_version_ 1783341180395716608
author Ranjan, Rahul
Sinha, Abhinav
Asif, Naiyer
Ifthekar, Syed
Kumar, Ashish
Chand, Suresh
author_facet Ranjan, Rahul
Sinha, Abhinav
Asif, Naiyer
Ifthekar, Syed
Kumar, Ashish
Chand, Suresh
author_sort Ranjan, Rahul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implant for fixation of neglected fracture lateral condyle humerus remains an issue of controversy. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcome of fixation with Kirschner wire (K-wire) and with cancellous screw (CS) in neglected fracture lateral condyle humerus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 patients of neglected lateral condyle humerus fracture, treated either by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with K-wire or ORIF with CS were included in study. The comparisons were made in term of slab immobilization time, union time, improved range of motion (ROM), final achieved carrying angle, and functional outcome measured by Liverpool Elbow Score (LES). RESULTS: There were 22 patients in Group I with mean age 7.8 years and 20 patients in Group II with mean age 7.3 years. Mean delay in presentation was 12.9 versus 15.6 weeks (P > 0.05). Mean followup was 26.9 versus 26.7 months. Mean duration of immobilization was 11.6 versus 9.4 weeks (P < 0.001). Improved carrying angle was 6.8° versus 9.7° (P < 0.05). Mean gain in ROM was 17.7° versus 27.5° (P < 0.05). Mean LES was 8.15 versus 8.18 (P > 0.05). Premature closure of physis was observed in two patients. Pin tract infection was seen in three of Group I (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in LES, irrespective of implant used. Screw was better in terms of duration of slab, improvement in carrying angle and ROM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6055469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60554692018-08-03 Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation Ranjan, Rahul Sinha, Abhinav Asif, Naiyer Ifthekar, Syed Kumar, Ashish Chand, Suresh Indian J Orthop Original Article BACKGROUND: Implant for fixation of neglected fracture lateral condyle humerus remains an issue of controversy. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcome of fixation with Kirschner wire (K-wire) and with cancellous screw (CS) in neglected fracture lateral condyle humerus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 patients of neglected lateral condyle humerus fracture, treated either by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with K-wire or ORIF with CS were included in study. The comparisons were made in term of slab immobilization time, union time, improved range of motion (ROM), final achieved carrying angle, and functional outcome measured by Liverpool Elbow Score (LES). RESULTS: There were 22 patients in Group I with mean age 7.8 years and 20 patients in Group II with mean age 7.3 years. Mean delay in presentation was 12.9 versus 15.6 weeks (P > 0.05). Mean followup was 26.9 versus 26.7 months. Mean duration of immobilization was 11.6 versus 9.4 weeks (P < 0.001). Improved carrying angle was 6.8° versus 9.7° (P < 0.05). Mean gain in ROM was 17.7° versus 27.5° (P < 0.05). Mean LES was 8.15 versus 8.18 (P > 0.05). Premature closure of physis was observed in two patients. Pin tract infection was seen in three of Group I (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in LES, irrespective of implant used. Screw was better in terms of duration of slab, improvement in carrying angle and ROM. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6055469/ /pubmed/30078903 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_319_16 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Indian Journal of Orthopaedics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ranjan, Rahul
Sinha, Abhinav
Asif, Naiyer
Ifthekar, Syed
Kumar, Ashish
Chand, Suresh
Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation
title Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation
title_full Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation
title_fullStr Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation
title_full_unstemmed Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation
title_short Management of Neglected Lateral Condyle Fracture of Humerus: A Comparison between Two Modalities of Fixation
title_sort management of neglected lateral condyle fracture of humerus: a comparison between two modalities of fixation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30078903
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_319_16
work_keys_str_mv AT ranjanrahul managementofneglectedlateralcondylefractureofhumerusacomparisonbetweentwomodalitiesoffixation
AT sinhaabhinav managementofneglectedlateralcondylefractureofhumerusacomparisonbetweentwomodalitiesoffixation
AT asifnaiyer managementofneglectedlateralcondylefractureofhumerusacomparisonbetweentwomodalitiesoffixation
AT ifthekarsyed managementofneglectedlateralcondylefractureofhumerusacomparisonbetweentwomodalitiesoffixation
AT kumarashish managementofneglectedlateralcondylefractureofhumerusacomparisonbetweentwomodalitiesoffixation
AT chandsuresh managementofneglectedlateralcondylefractureofhumerusacomparisonbetweentwomodalitiesoffixation