Abstract

BackgroundIn terms of upper extremity fractures by patients with multiple injuires, a lot of studies have assessed the functional outcome following trauma to have less favorable outcomes in regards to functional recovery. We tested the hypothesis that differences in clinical outcome occur between shaft and articular injuries of the upper extremity, when patients that sustained neurologic deficits (e.g. brachial plexus lesions) are excluded.MethodsWe involved Patients with isolated or combined upper extremity fracture, ISS > 16 in a level one trauma center. The follow up was at least 10 years after the initial injury. Both clinical examination (range of motion, instability, contractures, peripheral nerve damage) and radiographic analysis were carried out. We evaluated also the development of heterotopic ossifications. To analyse patients were subdivided into 3 different subgroups (articular [IA], shaft [IS], and combined [C]).ResultsA statistically significant difference was found when ROM was compared between Group IS and C (p = 0.012), for contractures between Groups IA and C (p = 0.009) and full muscle elbow forces between Groups IS and C (p = 0.005) and Group IA and IS (p = 0.021). There was a significantly increased incidence in heterotopic ossifications when articular involvement was present. This applied for the isolated (p < 0.02) and the combined group (Group C vs Group IS, p = 0.003).When Brooker type I/II in group IA and Brooker types III/IV were combined, there was a significant difference (p < 0.001). In group IA (n = 1) and in group C (n = 6), HO developed or worsened after revision surgery, all of which were performed for malunion or nonunion.ConclusionsIn this study, patients with isolated shaft fractures of the upper extremity tend to have a more favorable outcome in comparison with combined to isolated articular fractures in terms of range of motion, pain and the ability to use the arm for everyday activities.In the clinical practice of the treatment of polytraumatized patients with upper extremity injuries, we feel that the relevance of these injuries should not be underestimated. They are especially prone to development of heterotopic ossifications, thus requiring prophylactic measures, if necessary. As their incidence increases with the rate of reoperations, we feel that even during initial care, meticulous surgery is required to avoiding the necessity of revision surgeries. Similar to injuries below the knee, upper extremity injuries, should be treated to avoid any functional disability.

Highlights

  • In terms of upper extremity fractures by patients with multiple injuires, a lot of studies have assessed the functional outcome following trauma to have less favorable outcomes in regards to functional recovery

  • A statistically significant difference was found when Range of Motion (ROM) was compared between Group IS and C (p = 0.012), for contractures between Groups isolated articular (IA) and C (p = 0.009) and full muscle elbow forces between Groups IS and C (p = 0.005) and Group IA and IS (p = 0.021)

  • In group IA (n = 1) and in group C (n = 6), Heterotopic ossifications (HO) developed or worsened after revision surgery, all of which were performed for malunion or nonunion

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In terms of upper extremity fractures by patients with multiple injuires, a lot of studies have assessed the functional outcome following trauma to have less favorable outcomes in regards to functional recovery. It has been one of the main goals to re-establish functionality that allow the patient to return to activities of daily life (ADL) In those patients that sustained multiple injuries, functional recovery has been a special area of focus along with recent improvements in survival rates [1,2,3]. This is known to be a long-term process and multiple studies have investigated outcome with regards to upper and lower extremity injuries [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Dysfunction assessment after upper extremity fractures has frequently focused on issues of impaired range of motion [18, 19, 26, 28], non-union [24, 35,36,37], and heterotopic ossification [33, 38, 39]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call