Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Kirschner wire tension band (KWTB) and anatomical plate fixation are the most often used procedures for treating Mayo type II olecranon Fractures, each has its technological advantages. However, there are often some associated complications with single use, the combination of Kirschner-wire tension band reduction and locking plate fixation in treating Mayo type II olecranon fractures has been seldom recorded. This research aims to compare the efficacy of KWTB alone and KWTB combined with anatomical locking plate (ALP) in the treatment of Mayo type II olecranon fractures. Methods Clinical data from 72 individuals who had surgery for Mayo type II olecranon fractures between January 2020 and December 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were randomized to either KWTB ( n  = 37, 19 males and 18 females; range 36 to 75 years; mean age 49.12 ± 9.51 years) or KWTB + ALP ( n  = 35, 16 males and 19 females; range 37 to 75 years; mean age 50.07 ± 9.45 years). Data including operative duration, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and the time to return to work, fracture union time, and follow-up time were documented. Their Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Mayo elbow performance score and elbow range of motion (ROM) measures were utilized for functional assessments. Results The mean follow-up time was 28.03 ± 8.14 months, there were no statistical differences in general characteristics, intraoperative blood loss and length of incision between the two groups ( P  > 0. 05).The operative duration of KWTB + ALP group was greater than that of KWTB group ( P  < 0. 05). The average stay in the hospital was 8. 80 ± 2. 62 in the KWTB group and 6. 94 ± 3. 82 in the KWTB + ALP group ( P  = 0.0181). Patients come back to work in 9.6 ± 3.4 weeks in the KWTB group and 7.8 ± 2.7 weeks in the KWTB + ALP group ( P  = 0.0156). The rate of complications was considerably greater in the KWTB group (24.3% compared with 5.8%; P  = 0.0283). The fracture union time was 15.36 ± 3.44 in the KWBT group and 12.28 ± 3.42 in the KWTB + ALP group ( P  = 0.003). The mean flexion-extension ROM values and pronation-supination ROM values showed no statistical difference between the two groups. The mean DASH score was 14.0 ± 2.8 in the KWTB group and 10.7 ± 3.2 in the KWTB + ALP group ( P  = 0.001). The average Mayo score was 84.0 ± 9.3 in the KWTB group and 88.3 ± 9.1 in the KWTB + ALP group ( P  = 0.0171). Mean Mayo score and mean DASH score were statistically different between the 02 groups. Conclusion Both operative procedures effectively treat Mayo type II olecranon fractures. Despite the fact that KWTB therapy is inexpensive and simple to administer, there is a high risk of complications associated with it. KWTB combined with ALP in the management of Mayo type II olecranon fracture, especially type IIB olecranon fracture has satisfactory medium and long-term outcome.

Background and purpose Distal ulna fractures often occur in conjunction with distal radius fractures and other associated injuries. Currently, there are no satisfactory internal fixation systems available for addressing unstable distal ulna fractures, and a definitive consensus on the most effective treatment approach is still lacking. The objective of this research was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of using elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN) compared to locking compression plates (LCP) for treating unstable distal ulnar fractures in adults. Methods In a prospective clinical study, a total of 54 patients (21 females and 33 males; average age 49.3 years, ranging from 30 to 63 years) suffering from unstable or displaced fractures of the distal ulna were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups between January 2021 and August 2024. Specifically, 26 patients underwent treatment utilizing elastic stable intramedullary nails, whereas 28 patients were managed using locking compression plates. The two groups were evaluated prospectively for perioperative data and functional results. Results The ESIN group comprised 26 patients, exhibiting a mean age of 48.27 years (with a range of 30 to 62 years), while the LCP group included 28 patients, whose mean age was 50.33 years (ranging from 32 to 63 years). Both groups were comparable regarding gender distribution, side of injury, mechanisms of injury, and classifications of fractures. However, there were significant differences noted in incision length of the ulna, surgical duration, frequency of fluoroscopy, and the rates of excellent and good functional outcomes as measured by the Gartland-Werley scores between the two groups ( P  < 0.05). Conversely, no significant differences were found concerning the time to union and the duration of immobilization between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). Conclusion ESIN offers several advantages, including reduced incision length, lower frequency of fluoroscopy, shorter duration of the surgical procedure, decreased complication rates, and improved Gartland-Werly scores. Therefore, fixation using ESIN serves as an effective alternative for the treatment of distal ulnar fractures in adults. The minimally invasive nature and lower complication rates are defining characteristics of ESIN fixation.

Purpose Given the continuing improvements in nail implants, intramedullary nailing could become an alternative treatment option to osteosynthesis for the treatment of fractures in both forearm bones, with the proper indication. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate and compare the results of plate osteosynthesis and intramedullary nailing for the treatment of diaphyseal fractures in both forearm bones. Methods Sixty-seven patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 22–76 years) of this prospective study were divided into two groups according to treatment randomly: ORIF group (plate osteosynthesis) and IMN group (intramedullary nail). The results were assessed on the basis of the time to union, functional recovery (range of motion and functional outcomes [Grace and Eversmann rating system and DASH]), restoration of the ulna and the radial bow, operating time, exposure time to fluoroscopy, complications, and patient satisfaction. The ratio of the magnitude of the maximum radial bow on the injured side to that on the contralateral side (i.e., “the ratio of the contralateral side”) was determined to evaluate the effectiveness of radial bow restoration between groups. Results The time to union and the exposure time to fluoroscopy were significantly shorter in ORIF group than in IMN group. The presence of butterfly segment and severe displacement were factors leading to the increase in the time of union in IMN group. No intergroup differences were observed in the restoration and magnitude of the maximum radial bow on the injured side. However, ORIF group showed a significantly improved ratio of the contralateral side compared to IMN group. In terms of the location of maximum radial bow and ratio of the contralateral side, significant differences were found between groups. The functional outcomes did not significantly differ between the two groups, irrespective of the time of assessment. All patients achieved union in both groups, with the exception of a single case of nonunion in IMN group and one case of refracture after implant removal in ORIF group. Conclusion Based on the significant differences in the ratio of the contralateral side, plate osteosynthesis resulted in a more excellent extent of restoration to the conditions prior to the injury. Nevertheless, such significant differences in the restoration of the bow had no effect on the final clinical outcome. If the indication is properly selected, our results suggested intramedullary nailing can be acceptable and effective treatment options for fractures in both forearm bones.

This study compares the results of the locking compression plate (LCP) and the dynamic compression plate (DCP) in the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures in adults and defines the indications for the use of the LCP. Forty-two patients with diaphyseal forearm fractures were retrospectively analyzed. Of those, 22 had been treated with the LCP (LCP group) and 20 had been treated with the DCP (DCP group). The AO/ASIF classification was used to classify the fractures. Patients were assessed using the Grace-Eversmann criteria and the Disabilities of the Arm and Shoulder and Hand questionnaire during the final follow-up. Mean follow-up was 21 months (range, 20–24 months) in the LCP group and 23 months (range, 19–26 months) in the DCP group. Union was achieved in all patients. Mean time to union was 15 weeks (range, 12–25 weeks) in the LCP group and 17 weeks (range, 13–24 weeks) in the DCP group. In each group, 1 patient experienced delayed union, which required no additional surgical intervention. No significant difference was found regarding the time to union between the groups ( P >.05). No significant difference existed between the 2 groups in terms of Grace-Eversmann criteria and Disabilities of the Arm and Shoulder and Hand scores (both P >.05). The results of these different fixation methods for forearm fractures in adults are similar. As such, the correct selection and application of surgical technique is more important than the type of plate used.

BackgroundThe most effective type of plate fixation for diaphyseal forearm fractures has not been defined. We performed a prospective, randomized trial in which the limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) was compared with the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix) for the treatment of forearm fractures at one center.MethodsNinety-two patients with 125 forearm fractures were recruited for the study and were randomly assigned to fracture fixation with one of the two devices. The average age of the patients was thirty-six years. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-two months. Patients were assessed periodically with use of radiographs and were assessed with regard to pain and function at time of the latest follow-up.ResultsThree patients (four fractures) in the PC-Fix group and five patients (five fractures) in the LC-DCP group had a delayed union, but no patient in either group had a nonunion. With the numbers available, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to operative time, time to union, callus formation, pain, or functional outcome. Deep infection occurred in one patient with a closed fracture in the PC-Fix group and in one patient with an open fracture in the LC-DCP group. In addition, one refracture occurred in each group. Both refractures occurred at the site of a screw track.ConclusionDespite the differences in the concept of fracture fixation, these two implants appear to be equally effective for the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic study, Level I-1b (randomized controlled trial [no significant difference but narrow confidence intervals]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Isolated coronoid, isolated radial head, and combined coronoid and radial head fractures are common elbow fractures, and specific ligamentous injury of each fracture configuration has been reported. However, the osseous injury mechanism related to ligament status remains unclear. Questions/purposes The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine what ligamentous injury patterns (medial or lateral collateral) and bone contusion patterns (medial or lateral) are associated with isolated coronoid, isolated radial head, and combined coronoid and radial head fractures; (2) to correlate the osseous injury mechanism based on these findings with isolated coronoid, isolated radial head, and combined coronoid and radial head fractures; and (3) to determine whether isolated and combined coronoid fractures have different fracture lines through the coronoid (tip or anteromedial facet), speculated to be caused by different injury mechanisms. Methods Between June 2007 and June 2012, 100 patients with elbow fractures were included in the cohort, with 46 of these patients being excluded owing to incongruity for our surgical indication. Finally, 54 patients with surgically treated elbow fractures who had MRI preoperatively were assessed retrospectively. There were 17 elbows with isolated coronoid fractures, 22 with isolated radial head fractures, and 15 with combined coronoid and radial head fractures. Collateral ligament injury pattern and existence of distal humerus bone contusion were reviewed on MR images. Results Patients with isolated radial head fractures were at greater risk of medial collateral ligament rupture compared with patients with isolated coronoid fractures (radial head only: 15 of 22 [68%]; coronoid only: three of 17 [18%]; odds ratio [OR], 10.0; 95% CI, 2.2–46.5; p = 0.002). Patients with isolated coronoid fractures had greater risk of lateral ulnar collateral ligament ruptures (coronoid: 16 of 17 [94%]; radial head: seven of 22 [32%]; OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.8–333.3; p < 0.001). The presence of radial head fractures was associated with the risk of lateral bone bruising (isolated radial head fracture: 32 of 37 [86%], isolated coronoid fracture: four of 17 [24%]; OR, 29.6; 95% CI, 5.2–168.9; p < 0.001). Medial bone bruising was only detected in isolated coronoid fractures (isolated coronoid fracture: 12 of 17 [71%], others: zero of 37 [0%]). All isolated coronoid fractures involved the anteromedial facet of the coronoid (17 of 17; 100%). However, combined coronoid and radial head fractures often involved the tip (13 of 15; 87%). Conclusions Isolated coronoid fractures mostly involved the anteromedial facet of the coronoid process associated with lateral ulnar collateral ligament rupture and medial bone bruising. However, isolated radial head fractures were associated with medial collateral ligament rupture and lateral bone bruising. Combined coronoid and radial head fractures mostly involved a tip fracture of the coronoid with lateral ulnar collateral ligament rupture and lateral bone bruising. Thus surgeons may predict which ligament they should be aware of in the surgical field. Level of evidence Level III, prognostic study.

Ulna styloid fracture occurs approximately about 55% of all distal end of radius fractures. However, the clinical and functional outcome of these fractures remains indefinite. Only 56 patients with distal radius fractures had concomitant ulna styloid fractures. The mean age was 32 years (range: 18-69; SD: ± 12.7). The majority were men. The mean time from injury was 18.7 months (range: 6-84; SD: ± 13.3). The most common was Frykman 2, followed by 6, type 8, and type 4. All were closed fractures; 60.7% were base, and 39.3% were tip fractures. 50% were treated with casting, 48.3% plating, and 1.8% external fixation. The mean period of casting was 7.67 weeks (range: 4-16; SD ± 3.1). The ulna styloid was united in 35.7%. There is no significant difference in the range of movement between those with ulna styloid union and non-union. The Ballottement test and Piano key sign was statistically insignificant between both groups. All the displacements were dorsal except in 1 case. The mean displacement of ulna styloid is 1.88mm (SD±1.08, Range: 0.20-4.60mm). The mean VAS score at rest and work is not statistically significant. The mean grip strength and functional score (DASH) are similar in both groups. Ulna styloid fractures do not contribute to the DRUJ instability and the status of the union of the ulna styloid and the site of the ulna styloid fracture (tip or base) did not have a bearing on the range of movement and functional status of the affected wrist. Temporary DRUJ immobilization might allow TFCC recovery.

A 60-year-old woman presented to the ED with left forearm pain after having been struck by a baseball bat. The forearm was swollen and tender, and a radiograph showed an isolated ulnar shaft fracture.

Purpose This study investigated the clinical and functional outcomes of children with distal both-bone forearm fractures treated by fixation of the radius only compared to fixation of both the radius and ulna. Methods A total of 71 patients from two centres with distal both-bone forearm fractures (30 in the ulna-yes group, 41 in the ulna-no group) who underwent closed reduction and percutaneous pinning treatment were retrospectively analysed. Operation duration, number of fluoroscopic exposures, loss of reduction rate and angulation based on radiographic assessment were compared between the two groups. Evaluation of wrist function including Gartland-Werley Score and Mayo Wrist Score were compared at the last follow-up. Results Ulna angulation upon bone healing on the posteroanterior and the lateral plane of ulna-no group (6.11 ± 1.56°; 6.51 ± 1.69°) was significantly greater than that of ulna-yes group (4.49 ± 1.30°; 5.05 ± 2.18°) ( p  < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the loss of reduction rate between ulna-yes group (6.67%, 2/30) and the ulna-no group (4.88%, 2/41) ( p  > 0.05). At last follow-up, no significant difference was found between the Gartland-Werley Scores of the ulna-yes group (1.83 ± 3.25, range: 0–16) and ulna-no group (1.85 ± 2.72, range: 0-11.5) ( p  > 0.05). No significant difference was found between the Mayo Wrist Scores of the ulna-yes group (92.60 ± 6.20) and ulna-no group (92.15 ± 7.58) ( p  > 0.05). Conclusions For distal both-bone forearm fractures in children, fixation of only the radius appears to be a viable method with equivalent clinical outcomes compared to fixation of both the radius and ulna.

IntroductionStudies are conflicting regarding the relationship between ulnar styloid fracture (USF) location and distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability in patients with distal radius fracture (DRF) and concomitant USF. The objective of this study was to determine the association of USF location with TFCC foveal tear and factors associated with DRUJ instability in patients with both DRF and USF.Materials and methodsFifty-four patients with both DRF and USF who had wrist MRI examination before surgery were analyzed. USF location (tip or base) and TFCC foveal insertion status (intact, partial tear, or complete tear or avulsion with fractured fragment) were evaluated. DRUJ stability was assessed intra-operatively after fixation of the radius. Factors potentially associated with DRUJ instability, such as age, gender, USF location, USF fragment gap, radioulnar distance, radial shortening, and TFCC foveal tear, were analyzed.ResultsAmong 54 patients, 37 (69%) and 17 (31%) had USF at the base and the tip, respectively. In patients with base fractures, TFCC foveal insertion was found to be disrupted in 89% (33/37) patients (complete tear in 11 and partial tear in 22) but intact in 11% (4/37). On the contrary, in patients with tip fractures, the insertion was found to be disrupted in 88% (15/17) patients (complete tear in 2 and partial tear in 13) but intact in 12% (2/17). After fixation of the radius, total 52% (28/54) patients showed DRUJ instability. Especially, DRUJ instability was found in 57% (21/37) of ulna styloid process base fracture patients and 41% (7/17) of ulna styloid process tip fracture patients. In univariate analysis, complete tear of TFCC foveal insertion and wider USF fragment distance were associated with DRUJ instability.ConclusionsTears of TFCC foveal insertion are common in patients with DRF and concomitant ulnar styloid base fractures. Based on the findings of this study, tear of TFCC foveal insertion seems to be also common in patients with DRF and concomitant ulnar styloid tip fractures. And also, DRUJ instability seems to be associated with a TFCC foveal tear independent of USF location.