Kim Wanlim, Choi Sunghun, Yoon Jun O, Park Ho Youn, Kim Sun Hwa, Kim Jin Sam
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.
J Hand Surg Am. 2014 Dec;39(12):2438-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.09.020. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
Although tension band wiring (TBW) is generally accepted as standard treatment for olecranon fractures, it has several shortcomings such as loss of reduction, skin irritation, and migration of the K-wires. To overcome these problems and increase fixation stability, we used a rigid fixation technique with double tension band wiring (DTBW). Here, we describe the technique and outcomes of the treatment.
We retrospectively reviewed 21patients with olecranon fractures who were treated by DTBW. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes by checking the range of motion, loss of reduction, functional scoring, skin complications, and pin migration. There were 15 cases of Mayo type IIA fractures (71%) and 6 of type IIB fractures (29%). The mean follow-up period was 37 months (range, 12-58 mo). We also compared the mechanical stability of DTBW and TBW in a sawbone model using a single cycle load to failure protocol.
All fractures united without displacement, and no migration of the K-wires was observed during the period of follow-up. Mean loss of elbow extension was 2° (range, 0°-15°) and mean elbow flexion was 134° (range, 125°-140°). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 94 (range, 70-100). Biomechanical testing revealed greater mechanical strength in the DTBW technique than in the TBW when measured by mean maximum failure load and mean bending moment at failure.
DTBW produced good clinical and radiological outcomes and could be an effective option for the treatment of olecranon fractures by providing additional stability through a second TBW. Biomechanical comparison with a control group (TBW) supported the mechanical benefits of DTBW.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
尽管张力带钢丝固定术(TBW)通常被认为是鹰嘴骨折的标准治疗方法,但它存在一些缺点,如复位丢失、皮肤刺激和克氏针移位。为克服这些问题并提高固定稳定性,我们采用了双张力带钢丝固定术(DTBW)这种刚性固定技术。在此,我们描述该技术及治疗结果。
我们回顾性分析了21例接受DTBW治疗的鹰嘴骨折患者。通过检查活动范围、复位丢失情况、功能评分、皮肤并发症和克氏针移位来评估临床和放射学结果。其中有15例梅奥IIA型骨折(71%)和6例IIB型骨折(29%)。平均随访时间为37个月(范围12 - 58个月)。我们还在锯骨模型中使用单周期加载至失效方案比较了DTBW和TBW的力学稳定性。
所有骨折均无移位愈合,随访期间未观察到克氏针移位。肘关节伸直平均丢失2°(范围0° - 15°),肘关节屈曲平均为134°(范围125° - 140°)。梅奥肘关节功能评分平均为94分(范围70 - 100分)。生物力学测试显示,通过平均最大失效载荷和失效时的平均弯矩测量,DTBW技术的力学强度高于TBW。
DTBW产生了良好的临床和放射学结果,通过第二条张力带钢丝提供额外稳定性,可能是治疗鹰嘴骨折的有效选择。与对照组(TBW)的生物力学比较支持了DTBW的力学优势。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性IV级。