Ditsios K, Stavridis S I, Savvidis P, Dinopoulos H, Petsatodis G
1 Orthopedic Department, "G.Papanikolaou" General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
5 Orthopedic Department-Hand Surgery Unit, "Asclepeion" Hospital of Voula, Athens, Greece.
Hippokratia. 2017 Jan-Mar;21(1):38-42.
The aim of this retrospective, case series was to report the clinical and radiological outcomes of plate fixation of AO Type C distal humeral fractures and to compare the two techniques, the double plate parallel fixation with the double plate orthogonal fixation.
Twenty-six consecutive patients had their AO type C distal humeral fracture treated either with the orthogonal (group A: 15 patients; mean age 53.5 years, range 21-96) or the parallel (Group B: 11 patients; mean age 56.5 years, range 17-86) plate fixation. The patients were assessed clinically with the use of Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI), and the grading system of Jupiter as well as radiographically. Twenty four patients (14 from group A and ten from group B) were available for follow-up. The mean follow-up for group A was 48.8 months and for group B, 33 months. According to MEPI, seven elbows were graded as excellent, five as good, one as fair, and one as poor in group A, whereas, in group B, six elbows were graded as excellent, and four as good. According to the Jupiter score, in group A the result was considered excellent in four cases, good in six, fair in three, and poor in one case, while three elbows were graded as excellent and seven as good in group B. Statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups in any of the parameters tested.
Our results provide further evidence that double plate fixation is an adequate treatment option with satisfactory mid-term results for these fractures and indicate that both configurations are equally effective. HIPPOKRATIA 2017, 21(1): 38-42.
本回顾性病例系列研究旨在报告AO C型肱骨远端骨折钢板固定的临床和影像学结果,并比较双钢板平行固定与双钢板正交固定这两种技术。
26例连续的AO C型肱骨远端骨折患者接受了正交钢板固定(A组:15例患者;平均年龄53.5岁,范围21 - 96岁)或平行钢板固定(B组:11例患者;平均年龄56.5岁,范围17 - 86岁)。使用梅奥肘关节功能指数(MEPI)和朱庇特分级系统对患者进行临床评估,并进行影像学评估。24例患者(A组14例,B组10例)可供随访。A组的平均随访时间为48.8个月,B组为33个月。根据MEPI,A组7例肘关节评为优,5例评为良,1例评为中,1例评为差;而B组6例肘关节评为优,4例评为良。根据朱庇特评分,A组4例结果评为优,6例评为良,3例评为中,1例评为差;B组3例肘关节评为优,7例评为良。统计学分析未显示两组在任何测试参数上有任何显著差异。
我们的结果进一步证明双钢板固定是治疗这些骨折的一种合适选择,中期结果令人满意,并表明两种固定方式同样有效。《希波克拉底》2017年,21(1): 38 - 42。