Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fracture-related and implant-specific factors influencing treatment results of comminuted diaphyseal forearm fractures without bone grafting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Recommendations regarding the application of primary autologous bone grafting in the surgical treatment of comminuted diaphyseal forearm fractures are conflicting. Some recent studies suggested that there is no difference in the union rate between simple and comminuted forearm fractures and that the use of bone grafting in the treatment of these fractures is therefore not necessary. Our hypothesis was that among comminuted forearm fractures there is a small group of fractures with a very large extent of comminution that heal with a significantly lower union rate and a prolonged time to union compared with other fractures. We believe that in these fractures bone grafting could help to reduce the time to union and further decrease the rate of nonunion.

Materials and methods

We reviewed the results of the treatment of 214 consecutive patients who sustained 319 diaphyseal fractures of forearm bones. To prove our hypothesis, union rate and time to union in fractures with different extents of comminution were compared. All fractures were treated by open reduction and internal fixation with plates without the use of bone grafting. In addition, the study evaluated other factors that could influence the union rate and time to union in observed fractures.

Results

Separate analysis of union rate and time to union in fracture groups with different extents of comminution confirmed our hypothesis only partially. Although we proved that fractures with bone loss greater than two-thirds of the diameter of the diaphysis had a significantly prolonged time to union, we could not demonstrate a significant difference in the union rate between groups. Based on these findings, we believe that primary autologous bone grafting of comminuted diaphyseal forearm fractures is not necessary in most cases. If used, its application should be reserved only for fractures where the bone loss exceeds two-thirds of the diameter of the diaphysis. Such fractures are rare; in our study, they accounted for only 5% of all fractures.

Conclusion

The most important factors found to influence the union rate and time to union were stability of fixation and type of plate used for fixation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson LD, Sisk TD, Tooms RE, Park WI (1975) Compression plate fixation in acute diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:287–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chapman MW, Gordon E, Zissimos AG (1989) Compression plate fixation of acute fractures of the diaphyses of the radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:159–169

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grace TG, Eversmann WW (1980) Forearm fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:433–437

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hadden WA, Reschauer R, Seggl W (1982) Results of AO plate fixation of forearm shaft fractures in adults. Injury 15:44–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hertel R, Pisan M, Lambert S., Ballmer FT (1996) Plate osteosynthesis of diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. Injury 27:545–548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Langkamer VG, Ackroyd CE (1991) Internal fixation of forearm fractures in the 1980s: lessons to be learnt. Injury 22:97–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McQueen MM (1999) Epidemiology of fractures of the radius and ulna. In McQueen MM, Jupiter JB (eds) Radius and ulna. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

  8. Ross ER, Gourevitch D, Hastings GW, Wynn-Jones CE, Ali S (1989) Retrospective analysis of plate fixation of diaphyseal fractures of forearm bones. Injury 20:211–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schatzker J, Tile M (1996) The rationale of operative fracture care, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  10. Wei SY, Born CT, Abene A, Ong A, Hayda R, Delong WG (1999) Diaphyseal forearm fractures treated with and without bone graft. J Trauma 46:1045–1048

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright RR, Schmeling GJ, Schwab JP (1997) The necessity of acute bone grafting in diaphyseal forearm fractures: A retrospective review. J Orthop Trauma 11:288–294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Novo mesto General Hospital, Šmihelska c.1, 7000, Novo mesto, Slovenia

    M. Mikek

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biomedical Informatics, Vrazov trg 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    G. Vidmar

  3. Department of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška c.2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    M. Tonin

  4. Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška c.9, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    V. Pavlovčič

Authors
  1. M. Mikek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Vidmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Tonin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Pavlovčič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Mikek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mikek, M., Vidmar, G., Tonin, M. et al. Fracture-related and implant-specific factors influencing treatment results of comminuted diaphyseal forearm fractures without bone grafting. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124, 393–400 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0668-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0668-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation