Cargando…

Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults

OBJECTIVE: To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture‐dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2019...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Jun‐yang, Zhang, Ji‐zheng, Wang, Ye‐ming, Tian, Xu, Dong, Jing‐ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670164/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32790243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12784
_version_ 1783610684177645568
author Liu, Jun‐yang
Zhang, Ji‐zheng
Wang, Ye‐ming
Tian, Xu
Dong, Jing‐ming
author_facet Liu, Jun‐yang
Zhang, Ji‐zheng
Wang, Ye‐ming
Tian, Xu
Dong, Jing‐ming
author_sort Liu, Jun‐yang
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture‐dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2019, 37 consecutive adult patients who had posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna (no PRUJ dislocation, n = 16) and posterior Monteggia fractures (PRUJ dislocation, n = 21) were included. All patients had intraoperative fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans, and standard radiography (anteroposterior view and lateral view). The mechanism of injury, the cases with open fracture, sustained multiple injuries and classification of fracture was recorded. The clinical details of the patients such as the final range of motion (ROM) and the Broberg–Morrey scores were described. RESULTS: Patients with PRUJ dislocation (ten type A, five type B, and six type D) and those without concomitant PRUJ dislocation (fifteen type A and one type C) exhibited an obvious difference according to the classifications of Jupiter et al. (P = 0.010). Ninety‐five percent of patients who had PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture, while only 50% of the patients who did not have PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture (P = 0.002). Meanwhile, 16 of 20 metaphyseal fractures had more than one fragment in the group of dislocations, but five of eight metaphyseal fractures were comminuted in the control group. The two groups exhibited an obvious difference (P = 0.009). The 21 patients who sustained a radioulnar dislocation had less mean arc of flexion, pronation, and Broberg–Morrey scores were significantly less than the patients of the control group (flexion: 117.38 ± 14.46 vs 127.50 ± 13.416, P = 0.035; pronation: 59.76 ± 11.88 vs 67.50 ± 6.58, P = 0.017; Broberg–Morrey: 80.48 ± 12.17 vs 88.19 ± 10.28, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Patients suffering posterior Monteggia fractures had more metaphyseal fractures, more comminuted fractures of the metaphysis, and worse ultimate ulnohumeral motion than patients of posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7670164
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76701642020-11-23 Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults Liu, Jun‐yang Zhang, Ji‐zheng Wang, Ye‐ming Tian, Xu Dong, Jing‐ming Orthop Surg Clinical Articles OBJECTIVE: To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture‐dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2019, 37 consecutive adult patients who had posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna (no PRUJ dislocation, n = 16) and posterior Monteggia fractures (PRUJ dislocation, n = 21) were included. All patients had intraoperative fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans, and standard radiography (anteroposterior view and lateral view). The mechanism of injury, the cases with open fracture, sustained multiple injuries and classification of fracture was recorded. The clinical details of the patients such as the final range of motion (ROM) and the Broberg–Morrey scores were described. RESULTS: Patients with PRUJ dislocation (ten type A, five type B, and six type D) and those without concomitant PRUJ dislocation (fifteen type A and one type C) exhibited an obvious difference according to the classifications of Jupiter et al. (P = 0.010). Ninety‐five percent of patients who had PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture, while only 50% of the patients who did not have PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture (P = 0.002). Meanwhile, 16 of 20 metaphyseal fractures had more than one fragment in the group of dislocations, but five of eight metaphyseal fractures were comminuted in the control group. The two groups exhibited an obvious difference (P = 0.009). The 21 patients who sustained a radioulnar dislocation had less mean arc of flexion, pronation, and Broberg–Morrey scores were significantly less than the patients of the control group (flexion: 117.38 ± 14.46 vs 127.50 ± 13.416, P = 0.035; pronation: 59.76 ± 11.88 vs 67.50 ± 6.58, P = 0.017; Broberg–Morrey: 80.48 ± 12.17 vs 88.19 ± 10.28, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Patients suffering posterior Monteggia fractures had more metaphyseal fractures, more comminuted fractures of the metaphysis, and worse ultimate ulnohumeral motion than patients of posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7670164/ /pubmed/32790243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12784 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Articles
Liu, Jun‐yang
Zhang, Ji‐zheng
Wang, Ye‐ming
Tian, Xu
Dong, Jing‐ming
Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_full Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_fullStr Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_full_unstemmed Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_short Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_sort difference between posterior monteggia fractures and posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna in adults
topic Clinical Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670164/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32790243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12784
work_keys_str_mv AT liujunyang differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT zhangjizheng differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT wangyeming differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT tianxu differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT dongjingming differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults