Open versus closed reduction and K-wire fixation for displaced supracondylar fracture of the humerus in children
Supracondylar fracture of the humerus is a common displaced type childhood fracture that is treated by two methods. To compare open and closed methods of reduction with 2 cross k-wire fixation, a retrospective comparative study of 66 paediatric patients with type III supracondylar fracture of the humerus, who were treated in two different hospitals utilizing two different protocols, was conducted. Group 1 was treated with open reduction and 2 cross k-wire fixation, and group 2 received the closed reduction and k-wire fixation protocol. Functional and cosmetic assessments were conducted utilizing the Flynn et al. outcome criteria. The test population consisted of 25 female (37.9%) and 41 male (62.1%) patients. There were 43 fractures (65.2%) in the right elbow and 23 fractures (34.8%) in the left. Group 2 (81.81%) stayed less than 4 days in the hospital, while 69.7% of group 1 stayed more than 5 days. Statistically, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between patients of both groups regarding the Flynn et al. criteria. Closed reduction technique was preferred because it required less hospitalization time and resulted in almost no visible surgical scars.
KeywordsClosed reduction Displaced fracture Supracondylar fracture Trauma
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All named authors hereby declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 8.Paradis G, Lavallee P, Gagnon N, Lemire L (1993) Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Technique and results of crossed percutaneous K-wire fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 231:231–237Google Scholar
- 13.Pirone AM, Graham HK, Krajbich JI (1988) Management of displaced extension-type supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:641–650. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198870050-00002.Pubmed:3392056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kotwal PP, Mani GV, Dave PK (1989) Open reduction and internal fixation of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus. Int Surg 74:119–122Google Scholar
- 17.Gartland JJ (1959) Management of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Surg Gynecol Obstet 109:145–154Google Scholar
- 18.Rockwood CA Jr, Wilkins KE, Beaty JH (1996) Fractures in children, vol 3. Lippincott-Raven, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mehlman CT, Crawford AH, McMillion TL, Roy DR (1996) Operative treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: the Cincinnati experience. Acta Orthop Belg 62(Suppl 1):41–50Google Scholar
- 20.Paradis G, Lavallee P, Gagnon N, Lemire L (1993) Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Technique and results of crossed percutaneous K-wire fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 297:231–237Google Scholar
- 21.Mubarak SJ (1985) Ischemia from fractures and injuries about the elbow. In: Morrey BF (ed) The elbow. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 289–301Google Scholar
- 23.Kalanderer O, Reisoglu A, Sürer L (2007) AgusH.how should one treat iatrogenic ulnar injury after closed reduction and percutaneous pinning of paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures. Injury 76:253–256Google Scholar
- 24.Lyons JP, Ashley E, Hoffer MM (1998) Ulnar nerve palsies after percutaneous cross-pinning of supracondylar fractures in children’s elbows. J Pediatr Orthop 18:43–45Google Scholar