scholarly journals Treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures in children

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Vopat ◽  
Patrick M. Kane ◽  
Melissa A. Christino ◽  
Jeremy Truntzer ◽  
Philip McClure ◽  
...  

Both bone forearm fractures are common orthopedic injuries. Optimal treatment is dictated not only by fracture characteristics but also patient age. In the pediatric population, acceptable alignment can tolerate greater fracture displacement due to the bone’s ability to remodel with remaining growth. Generally, these fractures can be successfully managed with closed reduction and casting, however operative fixation may also be required. The optimal method of fixation has not been clearly established. Currently, the most common operative interventions are open reduction with plate fixation <em>versus</em> closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation. Plating has advantages of being more familiar to many surgeons, being theoretically superior in the ability to restore radial bow, and providing the possibility of hardware retention. Recently, intramedullary nailing has been gaining popularity due to decreased soft tissue dissection; however, a second operation is needed for hardware removal generally 6 months after the index procedure. Current literature has not established the superiority of one surgical method over the other. The goal of this manuscript is to review the current literature on the treatment of pediatric forearm fractures and provide clinical recommendations for optimal treatment, focusing specifically on children ages 3-10 years old.

1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 651-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Ortega ◽  
Randall T. Loder ◽  
Dean S. Louis

1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Van der Reis ◽  
Norman Y. Otsuka ◽  
Paul Moroz ◽  
Jung Mah

2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osman Tugrul Eren ◽  
Metin Kucukkaya ◽  
Caglar Kockesen ◽  
Yavuz Kabukcuoglu ◽  
Unal Kuzgun

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-40
Author(s):  
Janis Upenieks ◽  
Sintija Sloka ◽  
Aigars Petersons ◽  
Anita Villerusa

SummaryIntroduction.Forearm fractures make up a significant part of overall fracture rate in pediatric population, especially in 7-15 years old children. Different methods of treatment have been used, depending on the age of children and type and localization of fracture. Most controversies can be seen among conservative and surgical methods of treatment.Aim of the Study.The aim of our study is to identify common localizations and types of forearm bone fractures in pediatric population, as well as analyze patient data and treatment process depending on selected method of treatment for out-patients and in-patients.Materials and Methods.Retrospective analysis of out-patient and in-patient records, treated in University Children’s hospital from 2007 to 2011 was made, including first time patients with fractures of one or both forearm bones, according to ICD-10 codes S52.0- S52.9. Demographical data, trauma mechanisms, localization and type of fracture, as well as applied treatment and stay length at hospital were analyzed. 1742 out-patients and 1029 in-patients, 7-15 years old at the moment of trauma, were included in this research.Results.2771 forearm fractures were registered, 62.9% patients were treated on out-patient basis, 37.1 % patients required treatment in hospital. Forearm bone fractures were gender specific - 2235 boys and 536 girls had to be treated (Male:Female ratio was 4.2 : 1). The peak incidence was seen in 13 years old boys and girls. Boys suffered from forearm fractures more often in any age group. Most common mechanisms of injuries causing forearm fractures in children were related with sports trainings - 22.1%, skiing - 15.0% and traffic injuries - 10.0%. Most common activities at the moment of trauma differ by season - during winter months they include skiing, skating and sledging while in summer falls from height, bicycles and swings are dominant. Several trauma mechanisms, like sport trainings, are not season-dependent. Some injury mechanisms differ significantly by gender. Boys were more often as girls injured during sports trainings and skiing, while girls experience forearm fractures due to bicycling and skating. Occurrence of forearm fractures in children has seasonal differences with two peaks: from June to August and from December to February. Distal forearm fractures are the most often seen localization of overall forearm fractures (42 % in boys and 36 % in girls). In out-patients group conservative treatment was performed - plaster immobilization in 1339 cases and closed reduction, followed by plaster immobilization in 403 cases. In-patients were treated both - conservatively with immobilization in 21 cases and closed reduction in 188 cases, and surgically with K-wire osteosynthesis in 137 cases or elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) in 683 cases. The type and localization of each fracture, along with the age of patient, are the key factors for choosing the right treatment method. K-wire osteosynthesis was performed in all age groups for unstable fractures in distal or proximal third of forearm. ESIN was a method of choice for unstable or comminuted midshaft fractures of one or both bones, metadiaphyseal fractures and some specific conditions (radial neck fractures, Monteggia fractures-dislocations), especially in older patients. Stay length at hospital was ranging from 1 to 2 hospital days in case of immobilization (mean = 1,05 days), from 1 to 4 days in closed reduction group (mean = 1,32 days), but 1 to 12 days in hospital spent children after K-wire osteosynthesis (mean = 1,99 days) or ESIN (mean = 2,38 days).Conclusions.1. Forearm fractures in children have a significant gender diversity (M : F ratio is 4,2 : 1).2. Peak incidence group is 13 years old adolescents of both genders.3. Seasonality and season-specific injury patterns are typical for pediatric forearm fractures.4. The most common anatomic localization is the distal segment of forearm bones.5. Younger children (7-9 years) are mainly treated by conservative methods, while methods of choice for treatment of forearm fractures in adolescents (13-15 years) are operative.6. Surgical treatment of fractures do not significantly increase stay length at hospital.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-54
Author(s):  
Poojan Kumar Rokaya ◽  
Mangal Rawa ◽  
Javed Ahmad Khan

Background & Objectives: Pediatric forearm bone fractures are common orthopedic injuries. Generally, these fractures can be successfully managed with closed reduction and casting however operative fixation may be required. Currently, the most common operative interventions are open reduction with plate fixation versus closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation. Intramedullary fixation materials include Steinmann pins, Kirschner-wires, Rush pins, and elastic titanium nails. To demonstrate the outcome of Intramedullary Stainless steel Rush pins for the treatment of Pediatric diaphyseal forearm bone fracture.Materials & Methods: This study included thirty children with diaphyseal forearm bone fracture treated with intramedullary stainless steel rush pin. Patient’s age, sex, side, mode of injury, fracture type, fixation indication and method, time of clinical and radiological union, complication rate and final range of motion were evaluated at subsequent follow up­. Clinical evaluation was done as per Price’s criteria. Results: Among 30 patients there were 22 boys (73.3%) and 8 girls (26.6%) with a mean age of 11.8 years (Range, 5 to14 years). Twenty (66.6%) patients had right forearm fracture, 10 (33.3%) patients had left forearm fracture. Union was obtained in a mean of 6.5±1.0 weeks (range 6 to 9 weeks). According to the criteria of Price et al. an excellent result was achieved in 25 patients (83.3%) and a good result in five patients (16.6%). Out of total 30 patients six (20%) had minor complications. Conclusion: Fixation with intramedullary stainless steel rush pin produces good to excellent results in diaphyseal forearm bone fractures in children. Based on our experience, rush pins are simple, safe, easily available and affordable to most of the patients in developing countries.JCMS Nepal. 2016;12(2):50-4


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document