Analysis of complications after a floating elbow injury
- 248 Downloads
The aim of the present study is to analyse complications after a floating elbow injury, attempting to establish which of them act as a poor prognosis factor regarding clinical and functional results.
Materials and methods
Twenty-three patients who suffered a floating elbow injury, treated at our institution from 2004 to 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups depending on the type of injury. An analysis of demographic data, associated injuries, treatment options and complications was carried out. Clinical evaluation was made by a conventional goniometer, testing flexo-extension and prono-supination ranges. For functional evaluation, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was employed. Association between radioulnar synostosis, articular surface disruption, nerve injury and clinical and functional results was analysed.
Patients with radioulnar synostosis had worse results in functional evaluation than patients without it (56.6 vs. 75); this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.05). Regarding intra-articular extension, we found statistical association with worse results in functional evaluation (p = 0.018); however, nerve palsy does not seem to influence functional results.
Radioulnar synostosis and intra-articular extension of the injury are poor prognosis factor in floating elbow.
KeywordsFloating elbow Complications Prognosis Radioulnar synostosis
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the development of this work.
Approval was gained from the audit committee according to the regulation of our institution.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
- 1.Stanitski CL, Micheli LJ (1980) Simultaneous ipsilateral fractures of the arm and forearm in children. Clin Orthop 153:218–222Google Scholar
- 19.Garland DE, Dowling V (1983) Forearm fractures in the head-injured adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 176:190–196Google Scholar