Search

Objective Olecranon osteotomy and paratricipital approaches were widely used in the treatment of type C distal humerus fracture but some disadvantages exist, so a combined medial and lateral approach was designed. The objective of this study was to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes of combined medial and lateral approach with the paratricipital approach in open reduction and internal fixation of type C distal humerus fractures. Methods From May 2018 to April 2020, 37 patients with type C distal humerus fracture who accepted open reduction and internal fixation in our hospital were enrolled in this study. All cases were randomly divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: combined medial and lateral approach group (19 cases), paratricipital approach group (18 cases). All of the patients received open reduction and double vertical plates fixation. The operation and follow‐up indexes, including operation time, blood loss, incision length, triceps muscle strength, flexion‐extension arc of elbow and forearm rotation arc, were recorded and compared. Caja score was used to assess the quality of fractures reduction. Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was used to evaluate the elbow function in the follow‐up. Complications such as incision infection, ulnar nerve injury, degenerative osteoarthritis, and heterotopic ossification were analyzed. Results The differences in age, gender, and AO classification of fractures between two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The sum of medial and lateral incision length of combined approach group was longer than the midline incision of paratricipital approach group (15.4 ± 0.8 vs. 14.6 ± 0.8, p 0.05), blood loss (71.3 ± 24.5 vs. 72.8 ± 24.6, p > 0.05), and Caja score (16.05 ± 5.67 vs. 15.56 ± 5.66, p > 0.05). During the follow‐up, the MEPS of combined approach group was higher than that of paratricipital approach group at 3 months postoperatively (80.5 ± 5.7 vs. 68.9 ± 8.1, p 0.05) and at the last follow‐up (86.8 ± 7.1 vs. 86.9 ± 7.7, p > 0.05) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in triceps muscle strength (p > 0.05), flexion‐extension arc (126.8 ± 5.3 vs. 128.9 ± 6.0, p > 0.05), and forearm rotation arc (163.2 ± 5.3 vs. 163.6 ± 4.8, p > 0.05) at the last follow‐up. Although the incidence of complication of combined approach group (15.8%) was lower than that of paratricipital approach group (22.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Conclusions The combined medial and lateral approach was an effective and safe way of open reduction and internal fixation for type C distal humerus fractures. Compared with the paratricipital approach, the combined medial and lateral approach could restore the elbow function more quickly postoperatively, and the long‐term results were comparable.

Objective To investigate the factors, surgical treatment methods and clinical effect of internal fixation failure of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Methods From June 2015 to May 2019, arthroplasty and internal fixation revision were used to treat 18 cases of internal fixation failure of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. There were 10 males and eight females, with an average age of 67.3 years (38–92 years). The 16 cases of initial intertrochanteric fractures were classified according to AO/OTA:13 cases of A2 and 3 cases of A3, the other 2 cases were subtrochanteric fractures (Seinsheimer type IV). The internal fixation failure was treated with total hip arthroplasty (6 cases), bipolar hemiarthroplasty (4 cases), revision with proximal femoral lockingplate (4 cases) and extend intramedullary nail (4 cases). Results All patients were followed up for an average of 24.7 months (range, 12 to 36 months). The average operative time was 111.4 min (range, 72 to 146 min) and the average intraoperative blood loss was 403.6 mL (range, 200 to 650 mL). The average time of fracture union was 6.9 months (range, 5 to 9 months) for cases of internal fixation revision. The operative time of the arthroplasty group was shorter than the revision group (P