Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the triceps-sparing approach with olecranon osteotomy regarding their effects on the functional outcomes of intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), by reviewing 67 cases of intercondylar distal humerus fractures surgically managed with either of the approaches during 2001–2009. The medical records and radiographs of 30 male and 37 female patients, with a mean age of 44.5 years (range, 16–77) and a mean follow-up time of 34.3 months (range, 6–89), were retrospectively reviewed. Flexion, extension, arc of flexion/extension, pronation, supination, arc of pronation/supination and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were used to assess the functional outcomes of intercondylar distal humerus fractures treated with ORIF through the triceps-sparing approach or olecranon osteotomy. According to the AO Foundation (AO) classification, there were 10 cases of C1, 28 cases of C2 and 29 cases of C3 fractures. At the time of review, all fractures had united. Although there was no overall statistically significant difference in the average flexion, extension, arc of flexion/extension, pronation, supination and arc of pronation/supination between the triceps-sparing group ( n = 34) and the olecranon osteotomy group ( n = 33), patients above 60 years of age tended to have more extension loss (mean 22.9°, range 0–55°) after ORIF via the triceps-sparing approach, compared with any other surgical approach/age combination group. In the triceps-sparing group, although only 37.5% of patients over the age of 60 years obtained excellent/good MEPS, the rate increased to 100% in patients aged less than 40 years of age ( P < 0.05). By contrast, the rate of excellent/good MEPS remained above 80% in all age groups of patients treated with ORIF via olecranon osteotomy. In conclusion, ORIF via the triceps-sparing approach confers inferior functional outcomes for intercondylar distal humerus fractures in patients over the age of 60 years, for whom the olecranon osteotomy approach may be a better choice. However, for patients less than 60 years of age, especially those less than 40 years of age, either approach confers satisfactory outcomes.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have