Are Outcomes Comparable for Repair of AO/OTA Type 13C1 and Type 13C2 Distal Humeral Fractures Using the Paratricipital Approach?
- Author:
Soonchul LEE
1
;
Eugene BAEK
;
Minwook KIM
;
Junhan KIM
;
Hyunil LEE
;
Do Kyung KIM
;
Yoon JANG
;
Soo-Hong HAN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2022;14(2):169-177
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Studies have reported favorable outcomes using the paratricipital approach for fixation of distal humeral intra-articular fractures. However, literature evaluating the clinical results of the approach remains limited. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between type 13C2 and type 13C1 distal humeral fractures after open reduction and internal fixation performed using the same approach and same type of plate.
Methods:A total of 52 adults with type 13C1 or 13C2 distal humeral fractures were treated surgically at our institution during 2006 to 2018. We retrospectively analyzed data from 29 of these patients (19 with type 13C1 fractures and 10 with 13C2 fractures) who met the inclusion criteria. All subjects were followed for a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Clinical and radiologic results were analyzed to determine differences in outcomes between the two types of fractures. Clinical results were evaluated using elbow range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) score. Alignment, fracture union, and presence of posttraumatic arthritis were evaluated radiologically.
Results:The patients’ mean age was 51 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 29 months. Mean ROM was 129.5° ± 21.5° in the type 13C1 group and 123.0° ± 20.6° in the 13C2 group (p = 0.20). Mean Q-DASH score was 12.6 ± 11.7 in the 13C1 group and 16.2 ± 19.8 in the 13C2 group (p = 0.60). Mean MEPS was 92.9 ± 8.5 in the 13C1 group and 85.0 ± 14.1 in the 13C2 group (p = 0.09). Carrying angle did not differ significantly between the 13C1 and 13C2 groups. No patient in either group exhibited nonunion or posttraumatic arthritis.
Conclusions:Although the paratricipital approach has the disadvantage of limited visualization of articular surfaces, there were no differences in surgical outcomes between type 13C1 and type 13C2 distal humeral fractures after fixation using this approach.Thus, surgeons may need to consider using the paratricipital approach for open reduction and internal fixation of 13C2 distal humeral fractures.
