Olecranon sled fixation versus tension band wiring fixation in treatment of Mayo ⅡA olecranon fractures
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20230324-00145
- VernacularTitle:雪橇板与克氏针张力带内固定MayoⅡA型尺骨鹰嘴骨折的疗效比较
- Author:
Jianyu ZHANG
1
;
Yejun ZHA
;
Chen CHEN
;
Maoqi GONG
;
Xieyuan JIANG
Author Information
1. 北京积水潭医院创伤骨科，北京大学第四临床医学院，北京 100035
- Keywords:
Elbow joint;
Fracture fixation, internal;
Comparative study;
Olecranon sled;
Olecranon fracture
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2023;25(5):387-392
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy between olecranon sled fixation and tension band wiring fixation in the treatment of Mayo ⅡA olecranon fractures.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the data of 54 patients with Mayo ⅡA olecranon fracture who had been admitted to Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from October 2018 to February 2021. There were 20 males and 34 females with an age of (45.5±17.7 years), and 36 left and 18 right sides. They were divided into 2 groups according to different methods of internal fixation. Group A (25 cases) was subjected to olecranon sled fixation and group B (29 cases) to tension band wiring fixation. Preoperative data, operation time, reoperations and complications during follow-up were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. In both groups at the last follow-up, the range of the elbow motion, the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score were recorded to evaluate the elbow function.Results:The 2 groups were comparable because there were no significant differences in all their preoperative demographic data ( P>0.05). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups either in follow-up time [(32.8±8.9) months for group A and (35.8±9.0) months for group B] or in operation time [60.0 (60.0, 82.5) min for group A and 60.0 (60.0, 67.5) min for group B] ( P>0.05). At the last follow-up in group A and group B, respectively, the flexion and extension of the elbow was 141.0°±8.4° and 140.0 (140.0, 150.0)°, the pronation-supination 180.0 (175.0, 180.0)° and 180.0 (175.0, 180.0)°, the MEPS score 100.0 (85.0, 100.0) and 100.0 (92.5, 100.0), and the DASH score 4.2 (1.7, 6.3) and 5.8 (1.3, 8.3), all showing no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups ( P>0.05). Olecranon skin irritation occurred in 5 patients (20.0%,5/25) in group A and in 15 patients (51.7%,15/29) in group B, and 7 patients (28.0%,7/25) in group A and 21 patients (72.4%,21/29) in group B underwent removal of internal fixation, both showing statistically significant differences between the 2 groups ( P<0.05). Conclusion:In the treatment of Mayo ⅡA olecranon fractures, compared with tension band wiring fixation, olecranon sled fixation may lead to comparable efficacy in fixation and functional recovery, but significantly reduced rates of complications and internal fixation removal.
