Hemiarthroplasty versus open reduction internal fixation for intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients.

Abstract

Intra-articular distal humerus fractures in the older population remain a challenge to fix, due to the comminution of fragments and poor bone stock. Recently Elbow Hemiarthroplasty (EHA) has gained popularity to treat these fractures, however no studies exist comparing EHA to Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF). To compare the clinical outcomes of patients over the age of 60 years treated with ORIF or EHA for multi-fragmentary distal humerus fractures. Thirty-six patients (mean age 73 years) treated surgically for a multi-fragmentary intra-articular distal humeral fracture were followed up for a mean duration of thirty-four months (12-73 months). Eighteen patients were treated with ORIF and eighteen with EHA. The groups were matched for fracture type, demographic characteristics and follow up time. Outcome measures collected included Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Visual Analogue pain Score (VAS), range of motion (ROM), complications, re-operations and radiographic outcomes. The quality of ORIF was judged against set radiographic criteria in order to understand the effect of sub-optimal ORIF technique. No significant clinical difference was found between EHA and ORIF in mean OES (42.5 vs 39.6, p = 0.28), mean VAS (0.5 vs 1.7, p = 0.08) or mean flexion-extension arc (123° vs 112°, p = 0.12). There were significantly more complications associated with ORIF compared to EHA (39% vs 6%, p = 0.04). ORIF executed with satisfactory fixation technique had a comparable complication rate compared to EHA (17% vs 6%, p = 0.6). Two ORIF patients required revision to Total Elbow Arthroplasty (TEA). None of the EHA patients required revision surgery. This study demonstrated similar short-term functional outcomes between EHA and ORIF for the treatment of multi-fragmentary intra-articular distal humeral fractures in patients >60 years of age. Early complications and re-operations were higher in the ORIF group, although this could be related to improper ORIF technique and patient selection.