Advertisement

Outcome of primary internal fixation of (type C) distal humerus fractures in the elderly

  • Ahmad M. WafaiEmail author
  • Gordhanbhai G. Tank
  • Brian J. Holdsworth
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this review is to evaluate the functional results of open reduction and internal fixation of AO type C distal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Twenty patients were recruited in this study with an average age of 73.5 years. AO principles were followed, using dual plating in most and inter-fragmentary screws to obtain stable fixation. Mobilisation was commenced on the first post-operative day. Functional results were 72% good or excellent using the index of Broberg and Morrey, and 93% good or excellent using the Mayo elbow performance index. The average loss of full extension was 17.3° (0–30°) and the average flexion was 131° (90–140°). Radiologically, all fractures were united at review although there was few screw loosening and one implant failure at the lateral column but this did not influence the functional outcome. In conclusion, open reduction and internal fixation of type C distal humerus fractures in elderly patients should continue to be the treatment of choice.

Keywords

Distal humerus fractures Fracture Elderly AO type C Elbow Open reduction Internal fixation Functional results 

Résultats de la fixation interne primaire des fractures distales de l’humérus chez le vieillard

Résumé

Le but de ce travail était d’évaluer le résultat fonctionnel de l’ostéosynthèse des fractures de l’humérus distal (type C de l’AO) chez le sujet âgé. 20 patients dont l’âge moyen était de 73,5 ans ont été inclus dans l’étude. L’ostéosynthèse a consisté le plus souvent, selon les principes de l’AO, en une double plaque avec visage compressif interfragmentaire. Le résultat fonctionnel a été jugé bon ou excellent dans 72% des cas selon le score de Broberg et Morrey, dans 93% des cas selon le score de la Mayo Clinic. La perte d’extension moyenne a été de 17,3° (0–30°) et la flexion moyenne de 131° (90–140°). Sur le plan radiologique les fractures sont toutes consolidées à la révision, malgré quelques déplacements de vis et une fracture d’implant latéral sans conséquence sur le résultat fonctionnel. En conclusion l’ostéosynthèse est le traitement de choix des fractures de type C de l’humérus distal.

Mots clés

Fractures de l’humérus distal Fracture Sujet âgé Fracture type C de l’AO Coude Ostéosynthèse Résultat fonctionnel 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the Consultants in the Orthopaedic departments at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham and the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary in Derby for their support and input in this review.

References

  1. 1.
    Aslam N, Willett K (2004) Functional outcome following internal fixation of intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus (AO type C). Acta Orthop Belg 70(2):118–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broberg MA, Morrey BF (1987) Results of treatment of fracture-dislocations of the elbow. Clin Orthop 216:109–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caja VL, Moroni A, Vendemia V, Sabato C, Zinghi G (1994) Surgical treatment of bicondylar fractures of the distal humerus injury. 25:433–438Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankle MA, Herscovici D Jr, DiPasquale TG, Vasey MB, Sanders RW (2003) A comparison of open reduction and internal fixation and primary total elbow arthroplasty in the treatment of intraarticular distal humerus fractures in women older than age 65. J Orthop Trauma 17(7):473–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gabel GT, Hanson G, Bennett JB, Noble PC, Tullos HS (1987) Intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus in the adult. Clin Orthop 216:99–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gofton W, MacDermid JC, Patterson SD, Faber K, King GJK (2003) Functional outcome of AO type C distal humeral fractures. J Hand Surg 28:294–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gambirasio R, Riand N, Hoffmeyer P (2001) Total elbow replacement for complex fractures of the distal humerus. An option for the elderly patient. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 83(7):974–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill DR, Morrey BF (1998) The Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis: a ten to fifteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 80-A:1327–1335Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holdsworth BJ, Mossad MM (1990) Fractures of the adult distal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 72-B:362–365Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang TL, Chiu FY, Chuang TY, Chen TH (2005) The results of open reduction and internal fixation in elderly patients with severe fractures of the distal humerus: a critical analysis of the results. J Trauma 58(1):62–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    John H, Rosso R, Neff U (1994) Operative treatment of distal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 76-B:793–796Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jupiter JB, Neff U, Holzach P, Allgower M (1995) Intercondylar fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 67A:226–239Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kocher M, Melcher GA, Leutenegger A, Ruedi T (1997) Elbow fractures in elderly patients. Swiss Surg 3:167–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korner J, Lill H, Muller LP, Hessmann M, Kopf K, Goldhahn J, Gonschorek O, Josten C, Rommens PM (2005) Distal humerus fractures in elderly patients: results after open reduction and internal fixation. Osteoporos Int 16 (Suppl 2):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kamineni S, Morrey BF (2005) Distal humeral fractures treated with non-custom total elbow replacement: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 87-A (Suppl 1 Pt1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    An KN, Chao EY (1993) Functional evaluation of the elbow In: Morrey BF (eds) The elbow and its disorders, 2nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 85–97Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muller ME, Allgower M, Schneider R, Willengger H (1992) Manual of internal fixation, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 411–452Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Müller LP, Dietz S, Rommens PM, Morrey BF (2003) Total elbow replacement as primary treatment for complex fractures of the distal osteopenic humerus. Eur J Trauma 2:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ray PS, Kakarlapudi K, Rajsekhar C, Bhamra MS (2000) Total elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Injury 31(9):687–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson CM, Hill RM, Jacobs N, Dall G, Court-Brown CM (2003) Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma 17(1):38–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Srinivasan K, Agarwal M, Matthews SJ, Giannoudis PV (2005) Fractures of the distal humerus in the elderly: is internal fixation the treatment of choice? Clin Orthop (434):222–230Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sodergard J, Sandelin J, Bostman O (1992) Postoperative complications of distal humeral fractures: 27/96 adults followed up for 6 (2 to 10) years. Acta Orthop Scand (63):85–89Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soon JL, Can BK, Low CO (2004) Surgical fixation of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus in adults. Injury 35(1):44–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tyllianakis M, Panagopoulos A, Papadopoulos AX, Kaisidis A, Zouboulis P (2004) Functional evaluation of comminuted intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus (AO type C). Long term results in twenty-six patients. Acta Orthop Belg 70(2):123–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zimmer Inc (2005) After elbow replacement surgery. http://www.zimmer.com/z/ctl/op/global/action/1/id/535/template/PC/navid/133

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad M. Wafai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gordhanbhai G. Tank
    • 2
  • Brian J. Holdsworth
    • 2
  1. 1.UttoxeterUK
  2. 2.Queen’s Medical CentreNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations