Treatment for Complex Elbow Fractures Involving Both a Hinged External Fixator and Internal Fixation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao He ◽  
Quan Fen ◽  
Jiarui Yang ◽  
Yutian Lei ◽  
Lisong Heng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
External Fixation ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Elbow Joint ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Monteggia Fracture ◽  
Fixation Group ◽  
Elbow Fractures ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Hinged External Fixator

Abstract PurposeTo explore the clinical outcomes of a hinged external fixator combined with internal fixation in treating complex elbow fractures.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 42 cases of complex elbow fractures treated in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2019. Twenty-four cases were treated with a hinged external fixator combined with internal fixation (external fixation group), including 14 cases of the terrible triad of the elbow, 5 cases of posterior Monteggia fracture, and 5 cases of transolecranon fracture-dislocation. Eighteen cases were treated with adjustable brace fixation combined with internal fixation (brace group), including 11 cases of the terrible triad of the elbow, 3 cases of posterior Monteggia fracture and 4 cases of transolecranon fracture-dislocation. All patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation, and the patients with postoperative elbow instability underwent fixation with a hinged external fixator or adjustable brace. Preoperative and surgical data were collected. At the last follow-up, elbow motion (extension-flexion, rotation) was recorded in the two groups of patients, and the Mayo Elbow Function Score (MEPS) was used to assess elbow joint function.ResultsAll patients were followed up for 12 to 55 months (mean 28.2 months). The bones healed in all patients with fractures; the healing time was 12.9±1.9 weeks for the external fixation group and 12.2±1.8 weeks for the brace group, and the difference was not statistically significant (P＞0.05). The average flexion-extension range of the elbow joint in the external fixation group was 128.8°±15.7°, the average rotation range of the forearm was 142.7° ± 21.5°, and the average MEPS score was 89.8±11.3 points (range 60-100 points); 14 cases were excellent, 7 cases were good, 2 cases were fair, and 1 case was poor. The excellent and good rate was 87.5%. In the brace group, the average flexion-extension range of the elbow joint was 110.3°±37.0°, the average rotation range of the forearm was 125.6°±30.5°, and the average MEPS score was 81.1±15.5 points (50-100 points); 8 cases were excellent, 5 cases were good, 2 cases were fair, and 3 cases were poor. The excellent and good rate was 72.2%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05).ConclusionsThe combination of an external fixator and internal fixation in the treatment of unstable complex elbow fractures can better restore the stability and function of elbow joints than can adjustable brace fixation.

Clinical Value of Computer-Assisted Taylor Three-dimensional External Fixation in the Treatment of Tibiofibular Fracture (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongfeng Sheng ◽  
Weixing Xu ◽  
Bin Xu ◽  
Hongpu Song ◽  
Di Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
External Fixation ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Clinical Value

UNSTRUCTURED The retrospective study of Taylor's three-dimensional external fixator for the treatment of tibiofibular fractures provides a theoretical basis for the application of this technology. The paper collected 28 patients with tibiofibular fractures from the Department of Orthopaedics in our hospital from March 2015 to June 2018. After the treatment, the follow-up evaluation of Taylor's three-dimensional external fixator for the treatment of tibiofibular fractures and concurrency the incidence of the disease, as well as the efficacy and occurrence of the internal fixation of the treatment of tibial fractures in our hospital. The results showed that Taylor's three-dimensional external fixator was superior to orthopaedics in the treatment of tibiofibular fractures in terms of efficacy and complications. To this end, the thesis research can be concluded as follows: Taylor three-dimensional external fixation in the treatment of tibiofibular fractures is more effective, and the incidence of occurrence is low, is a new technology for the treatment of tibiofibular fractures, it is worthy of clinical promotion.

scholarly journals Can a linear external fixator stand as a surgical alternative to open reduction in treating a high-grade supracondylar humerus fracture?

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
Barak Rinat ◽  
Eytan Dujovny ◽  
Noam Bor ◽  
Nimrod Rozen ◽  
Guy Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
External Fixation ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Closed Reduction ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Supracondylar Humerus Fractures ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Humerus Fractures ◽  
Carrying Angle

Objective High-grade pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures are commonly treated with closed reduction and internal fixation with percutaneous pinning. When this fails, open reduction followed by internal fixation is the widely accepted procedure of choice. Use of a lateral external fixator was recently described as an optional procedure, but evidence is scarce. Methods We investigated the outcomes of upper limbs treated by either open reduction with internal fixation or closed reduction and external fixation. Results Twenty-one patients completed the long-term follow-up; 11 underwent open reduction, and 10 underwent external fixation. Most patients in both groups reported excellent satisfaction. In both groups, the modified Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was extremely low and the average elbow range of motion was almost identical. Radiographic analysis consisting of Baumann’s angle and the carrying angle revealed no statistical difference between the two groups. Discussion Optional treatment using a linear external fixator for complex nonreducible supracondylar humerus fractures yielded acceptable clinical and radiographic results, as with open reduction. Our sample size was small, but the promising results may assist in the implementation of an alternative surgical procedure, especially in more complicated cases involving flexion-type fractures or severe soft tissue damage and swelling.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Hindfoot and Ankle Arthrodesis in Neuropathic Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011419S0028
Author(s):  
David Macknet ◽  
Andrew Wohler ◽  
Carroll P. Jones ◽  
J. Kent Ellington ◽  
Bruce E. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
External Fixation ◽  
Limb Salvage ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Ankle Arthrodesis ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Hardware Failure ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Fixation Group

Category: Ankle Arthritis, Diabetes, Hindfoot Introduction/Purpose: Charcot neuropathy of the ankle and hindfoot is a progressive and destructive process that can lead to instability and ulceration resulting in significant morbidity which can end with amputation. The foot and ankle surgeon’s aim is to reconstruct the high risk foot with the creation of a stable plantigrade foot, while reducing the risk of ulceration and allowing the patient to mobilize in commercially available footwear. There are numerous techniques for the reconstruction of the neuropathic hindfoot, but the most utilized of these include multiplanar external fixation or internal fixation with a plate or intramedullary nail. It is our goal to further elucidate outcomes of Charcot patients undergoing corrective ankle and hindfoot fusion comparing internal versus external fixation. Methods: We retrospectively collected 377 patients undergoing hindfoot and ankle arthrodesis at our institution from 2006- 2017. 77 patients were identified that underwent arthrodesis for Charcot arthropathy, 56 of which met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. This included 47 who had internal fixation as their primary procedure and 9 patients who underwent external fixation with a multi-planar external fixator. Our median follow up time was 3.4 years (IQR .5 to 12.9). Preoperatively we collected basic demographic variables, reasons for neuropathy, and ulcer status. Postoperatively we collected complications including infection, hardware failure, ulceration, recurrent deformity, and radiographic outcomes including union and hardware backout. Reoperation numbers and indications were also collected. Our primary outcome was limb salvage at final follow up. Secondarily, we collected final ambulatory and footwear status. Results: The limb salvage rate was 82% with 10 patients undergoing amputation, which did not vary between groups (p=.99). The primary reasons for amputation were persistent infection (4 of 10) and nonunion (4 of 10). Thirteen (24%) patients developed an infection. The median number of reoperations per patient was 1 (IQR 0-2) with the patients who underwent amputation undergoing a median of 2 (IQR 2-4) reoperations. The rate of union was 54%, occurring at a median of 26.5 (IQR 12-47) months. 44% (4/9) of patients in the external fixation group had a preoperative ulceration versus 19% (9/47) of the patients in the internal fixation group (p=.19). Preoperative ulceration was not a risk factor for amputation. Forty-two (75%) patients were ambulatory at final follow up. Conclusion: We report on the single largest series of Charcot patients undergoing hindfoot and ankle arthrodesis. The surgical management of this population has a high rate of complications with infection and reoperation being common. Despite a high nonunion rate most patients are able to ambulate in a brace or orthotic. Limb salvage can be expected with either internal or external fixation techniques.

Ankle spanning external fixator with limited internal fixation for distal tibial extra-articular fractures

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 4355
Author(s):  
Siddharth Goel ◽  
Abhay Elhence
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
External Fixation ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Tibial Fractures ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Ankle Pain ◽  
Distal Tibial Fractures ◽  
Tract Infections

Background: Fractures of the distal tibia are among the most difficult fractures to treat. The short distal segment presents difficulty in choosing the appropriate fixation method. The greatest challenge lies in the relatively tight soft tissue around the ankle. As a result, it has been a recent interest in treating these fractures with external fixation and limited internal fixation. The external stable fixation methods used are tubular or ring fixators, with or without immobilising the ankle. This minimally invasive nature of the surgery can avoid catastrophic wound complications like dehiscence, implant exposure and infection.Methods: 18 patients with extra-articular distal tibial fractures (AO Type 43A) were treated with the technique of ankle spanning external fixation. Lag screws or K-wires were supplemented for limited internal fixation when required. Fibula was stabilised in all cases. Intra- articular and Compound fractures were excluded. In addition to union at fracture site, ankle pain and motion was noted in each follow-up.Results: The mean follow-up was 25 months. Of the 18 patients included all but one fractures united with an average healing time of 16 to 18 weeks. Ankle pain and motion was graded according to Mazur modified by Teeny and Wiss clinical scoring system. 15 of them had excellent or good results, 2 had fair results. One patient had poor result. Five pin tract infections occurred. 17 patients had no evidence of osteoarthritis after completing follow up of at least 2 years.Conclusions: Distal tibial fractures are complex injuries, not only regarding the bony component, but also in terms of the management of the soft tissue problem. Ankle Spanning External Fixator with Limited Internal fixation is a relatively simple and cost-effective method for treating these fractures, achieving union and also maintaining ankle function.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE FUNCTIONAL RESULTS OF OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION FOR FRACTURE-DISLOCATIONS OF THE PROXIMAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT

Hand Surgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 107-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kentaro Watanabe ◽  
Yoshitake Kino ◽  
Hiroki Yajima
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Motion Exercise ◽  
Fracture Dislocations ◽  
Pip Joint ◽  
The Mean

To clarify the factors affecting functional results of fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), 60 patients, including 38 patients with a dorsal fracture-dislocation and 22 with a pilon fracture, were analysed. The mean ratio of articular surface involvement was 48.5% and a depressed central fragment existed in 75.3% of the cases. ORIF was performed in 47 patients through a lateral approach using Kirschner wires and in 13 through a palmar approach using a plate or screws. The mean flexion, extension and range of motion (ROM) of the PIP joint was 89.5°, 11.5° and 78.0°, respectively. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that a delayed start of active motion exercise after surgery, elderly age and ulnar ray digit were factors affecting functional outcomes. Although ORIF allows accurate restoration of the articular surfaces, an early start of motion exercise is essential for good results.

scholarly journals Comparison of percutaneous cross screw fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for pelvic Day type II crescent fracture-dislocation: case-control study

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guangheng Xiang ◽  
Xiaoyu Dong ◽  
Xingan Jiang ◽  
Leyi Cai ◽  
Jianshun Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Surgical Trauma ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Fixation Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Minimally Invasive Fixation

Abstract Objective To investigate the clinical outcomes of percutaneous cross screws internal fixation for pelvic Day type II crescent fracture-dislocation. Methods We reviewed 66 consecutive patients undergoing surgical treatment for Day type II crescent fracture-dislocation from June 2005 to December 2017. Percutaneous cross screws internal fixation was performed in 40 patients, and open reduction and internal fixation was performed in 26 patients. The patient characteristics, surgical complications, radiographic and clinical outcomes and were compared. Results There was no statistically difference on the mean time from injury to surgery between the two groups. The time of operation, the amount of blood loss, the length of incision, and the hospital stay were significantly shorter in the percutaneous cross screws internal fixation group. No significant difference on Matta scores and Majeed scores between the two groups. The open reduction and internal fixation group resulted in a higher rate of intraoperative hemorrhage, nerve injury, discomfort, and pain. Conclusion Percutaneous cross screws internal fixation for Day II type pelvic crescent fracture-dislocation was safe and effective. Minimally invasive fixation had the advantages of short operation and hospitalization time, less intraoperative bleeding, and surgical trauma.

Skeletal Stabilisation

2020 ◽  
pp. 41-56
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
External Fixation ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Skeletal Stability

In this chapter we draw upon published evidence and the experience of the authors to provide guidance in stabilisation for open tibial fractures. Most orthopaedic surgeons have, through their training, reached higher levels of proficiency and expertise in methods of internal fixation than with external fixation. The difference reflects the greater number of fractures treated with internal fixation methods. Spanning external fixation should provide skeletal stability without impeding access for plastic surgical procedures. This combination of prerequisites has to be met through a mutual understanding of bony and soft tissue requirements at first debridement and at definitive treatment of the open fracture. Many fixator configurations used currently and even advocated for in external fixator manuals simply fail to meet these requirements. Consequently, we provide a clear rationale for the recommendations made and encourage adoption of the principles described.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document