Medial Epicondyle Fractures: Biomechanical Evaluation and Clinical Comparison of 3 Fixation Methods Used in Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND

Screw fixation is the most commonly employed fixation strategy for displaced medial epicondyle fractures, but in younger patients with minimal ossification, the fracture fragment may not accommodate a screw. In these situations, Kirschner-wires (K-wire) or suture anchors may be utilized as alternatives. The purposes of this study were to examine the biomechanical properties of medial epicondyle fractures fixed with a screw, K-wires, or suture anchors, to evaluate clinical outcomes and complications of patients 10 years of age or younger treated with these approaches, and to perform a cost-analysis.

METHODS

Biomechanical assessment: Immature pig forelimbs underwent an osteotomy through the medial epicondyle apophysis, simulating a fracture. These were then fixed with a screw, K-wires or suture anchors. Cyclic elongation (mm), displacement (mm), load to failure (N), and stiffness (N/mm) were assessed. Clinical assessment: a retrospective review was performed of patients 10 years of age or younger with a medial epicondyle fracture fixed with these strategies. Radiographic outcomes, postoperative data and complications were compared. These data were used to perform a cost-analysis of each treatment approach.

RESULTS

Biomechanically, screws were stronger (P=0.047) and stiffer (P=0.01) than the other constructs. Clinically, 51 patients met inclusion criteria (screw=27, wires=11, anchor=13). Patients treated with K-wires were younger (P<0.05) and patients treated with screw fixation had a shorter casting duration (P=0.008). Irrespective of treatment strategy, all fractures healed (100%) and only 1 patient in the screw group lost reduction. Clinical outcomes and complications were similar between groups, but the suture anchor group was less likely to require a second surgery for implant removal (P<0.05). This lower reoperation rate led to a cost-saving of 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanically, all 3 approaches provided initial fixation exceeding the forces observed across the elbow joint with routine motion. The screw construct was the strongest and stiffest. Clinically, all 3 strategies were acceptable, with screw fixation offering a shorter casting duration, but greater implant removal need with higher associated costs.