Comparative Study of Olecranon Osteotomy versus Paratricipital Approach for Intra-Articular Fracture of Distal Humerus in Maharashtra Population: A Retrospective Study

  • Pravin Prakash Patil MIMSR Medical College, Latur, Maharashtra, India.
Keywords: Bicolumnar plating, Fluoroscopy oscillating saw, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Olecranon osteotomy, Goniometry, Paratricipital, Range of motion

Abstract

Background: Management of distal humerus fractures continues to be a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. The unique and complex anatomy of the distal humerus, involving ulna-humeral and radiocapitellar joints, makes anatomic reduction difficult and hardware placement challenging.
Materials and Methods: Out of 28 cases, 14 had olecranon osteotomy (OO) and 14 had paratricipital (PT) approach. The surgery was carried out under general anesthesia. Mid-line posterior incision was used with slight lateral bent on olecranon tip to avoid the weight-bearing zone ulnar nerve was identified first, then release of the ligament of struthers and medical intermuscular septum was done to transpose the ulnar nerve. All fractures were fixed as per AO principles using bicolumnar plating. Range of motion was measured by goniometer. Functional assessment was done by Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS).
Results: Parameters of OO and PT were compared, mean values were more or less similar values but MEPS shows variations in C3 type fractures in PT studies, as compared to OO.
Conclusion: The PT approach and the OO approach can be used alternatively for AO-13 C1 and C2 fractures with similar outcomes. However, in type C3, the PT approach yields poor outcome in comparison with OO approach.

Author Biography

Pravin Prakash Patil, MIMSR Medical College, Latur, Maharashtra, India.

Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedic.

References

1. Zlotolow DA, Catalano LW3rd. Surgical exposure of
humerus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;14:754-65.
2. Gafton WT, Macdermid JC. Functional AO Type C distal
humeral fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2003;28:294-308.
3. Jupiter JB, Mehne DK. Fractures of the distal humerus.
Othopedics 1992;15:825-35.
4. Galano GJ, Ahmad CS. Current treatment strategics for
bicolumnar distal humerus fractures. J. Am Acad Orthop
Surg 2010;18:20-30.
5. Ruedi TP, Buckley RE, Moran CG. Principles of Fractures
Management. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 2007. p. 98-102.
6. Muller ME, Nozarian S. The AO Classification of Long Bones
Fractures. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1990. p. 302-25.
7. Schildhauer TA, Nork SE. Extensor mechanism sparing
paratricipital posterior approach to distal humerus.
J Orthop Trauma 2003;17:374-8.
8. Pehlivan O, Functional treatment of the distal third
humernal shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
2002;122:390-5.
9. Ali AM, Ehab Y. Management of inter candylar fractures
of the humerus using the extensor mechanism sparing
paratricipital posterior approach. Acta Orthop Belg 2008;74:747-52.
10. Bass RL, Stern PJ. Elbow and forearm anatomy and surgical
approaches. Hand Clin 1994;10:343-56.
11. Wilkinson JM, Stanely D. Post-surgical approaches to elbow:
A comparative anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:380-2.
Published
2021-08-10
Section
Articles