How to Choose Between the Transolecranon and Triceps-Reflecting Approaches to Treat Distal Humerus Fractures in Adults: A Prospective Study

Objective To choose an appropriate posterior approach for distal humerus fractures in adults. Methods Fifty patients with distal humerus fractures were analyzed prospectively. The fractures were classified using the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO, Working Group for Bone Fusion Issues, in German/OTA) classification. The patients were divided into group A and group B. Olecranon osteotomy (the transolecranon approach) was performed in 30 patients, and the triceps-reflecting approach was used in 20 patients. The functional results were evaluated using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Results The average operative time was of 92.62 ± 8.73 minutes for group A, and of 78.63 ± 7.02 minutes for group B, ( p < 0.01), and the average blood loss was of 222.78 ± 34.93 mL for group A, and of 121.61 ± 19.85 mL for group B, ( p < 0.01), which were statistically significant. The mean scores on the MEPS and DASH of both groups were found to be insignificant. Complications like infection, neurapraxia and soft tissue irritation where observed more in group A. Conclusion The triceps-reflecting approach results in a shorter operative time, a lower levels of blood loss, and a low rate of complications, and olecranon osteotomy provides better accuracy in terms of articular reduction. But there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the functional outcome. Therefore, we have proposed a new classification that is a modification of the AO/OTA classification: type 1 includes AO grades 13A to C2 (B3 excluded); and type 2, AO 13C3. For type-1 fractures, the triceps-reflecting approach may be considered, and, for type-2 fractures, olecranon osteotomy.