Parallel versus perpendicular anatomic double plating for intercondylar humerus fractures
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Hospital of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100035, China
Abstract：Objective To retrospectively compare the clinical effect of anatomically designed perpendicular and parallel double plates in fixation of intercondylar humerus fractures. Methods A complete follow-up was made on 45 patients treated with anatomic locking plates for intercondylar humerus fractures. Among them, 26 underwent perpendicular double plate fixation (perpendicular group) and 19 parallel double plate fixation (parallel group). Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS）was performed at the last follow-up. All postoperative complications were documented as well. Results All fractures were healed without joint pain in the elbow. Arc of elbow flexion and extension, arc of forearm rotation, MEPS and rate of excellent/good outcomes between parallel and perpendicular groups were (100±21）° vs (99±34)°, (164±12)° vs (171±16)°, (91±6) points vs (91±10) points, 100% vs 92%， respectively (P>0.05). Conclusions Both fixation methods are effective in treatment of intercondylar humerus fractures. Additionally, the surgeons can make a choice about fixation methods based on fracture pattern and individual condition of the patients.
LI Ting,JIANG Xie-yuan,GONG Mao-qi et al. Parallel versus perpendicular anatomic double plating for intercondylar humerus fractures[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF TRAUMA, 2013, 29(5): 401-406.
［1］Robinson CM, Hill RM, Jacobs N, et al. Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma, 2003, 17 （1）:38-47.
［4］Clarke AM, Amirfeyz R. Distal humeral fractures - where are we now? J Orthop Trauma, 2012, 26 （5）:303-309.
［5］Vennettilli M, Athwal GS. Parallel versus orthogonal plating for distal humerus fractures. J Hand Surg (Am), 2012, 37 （4）:819-820.
［6］Theivendran K, Duggan PJ, Deshmukh SC. Surgical treatment of complex distal humeral fractures: functional outcome after internal fixation using precontoured anatomic plates. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2010, 19 （4）:524-532.
［7］Liu JJ, Ruan HJ, Wang JG, et al. Double-column fixation for type C fractures of the distal humerus in the elderly. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2009, 18 （4）:646-651.
［8］Kaiser T, Brunner A, Hohendorff B, et al. Treatment of supra- and intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus with the LCP Distal Humerus Plate: a 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2011, 20 （2）:206-212.
［10］Schuster I, Korner J, Arzdorf M, et al. Mechanical comparison in cadaver specimens of three different 90-degree double-plate osteosyntheses for simulated C2-type distal humerus fractures with varying bone densities. J Orthop Trauma, 2008, 22(2):113-120.
［11］Zalavras CG, Vercillo MT, Jun BJ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of parallel versus orthogonal plate fixation of intra-articular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2011, 20(1):12-20.
［12］Schemitsch EH, Tencer AF, Henley MB. Biomechanical evaluation of methods of internal fixation of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma, 1994, 8(6):468-475.
［13］Self J, Viegas SF, Buford WL Jr, et al. A comparison of double-plate fixation methods for complex distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 1995, 4(1 Pt 1):10-16.
［15］Got C, Shuck J, Biercevicz A, et al. Biomechanical comparison of parallel versus 90-90 plating of bicolumn distal humerus fractures with intra-articular comminution. J Hand Surg (Am), 2012, 37(12):2512-2518
［16］Tyllianakis M, Panagopoulos A, Papadopoulos AX, et al. Functional evaluation of comminuted intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus (AO type C). Long term results in twenty-six patients. Acta Orthop Belg, 2004, 70(2):123-130.
［17］Soon JL, Chan BK, Low CO. Surgical fixation of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus in adults. Injury, 2004, 35(1):44-54.
［18］Huang TL, Chiu FY, Chuang TY, et al. Surgical treatment of acute displaced fractures of adult distal humerus with reconstruction plate. Injury, 2004, 35(11):1143-1148.
［20］Helfet DL, Hotchkiss RN. Internal fixation of the distal humerus: a biomechanical comparison of methods. J Orthop Trauma, 1990, 4(3):260-264.
［21］Sanders RA, Raney EM, Pipkin S. Operative treatment of bicon-dylar intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus. Orthopedics, 1992, 15(2):159-163.
［22］Jacobson SR, Glisson RR, Urbaniak JR. Comparison of distal humerus fracture fxation: a biomechanical study. J South Orthop Assoc, 1997, 6(4):241-249.
［23］Schwartz A, Oka R, Odell T, et al. Biomechanical comparison of two different periarticular plating systems for stabilization of complex distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2006, 21(9):950-955.
［24］Reising K, Hauschild O, Strohm PC, et al. Stabilization of articular fractures of the distal humerus: early experience with a novel perpendicular plate system. Injury, 2009, 40(6):611-617.
［25］Shin SJ, Sohn HS, Do NH. A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intraarticular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2010， 19(1)：2-9.
［26］Wiggers JK, Brouwer KM, Helmerhorst GT, et al. Predictors of diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy after surgically treated distal humerus fractures. J Hand Surg (Am), 2012, 37(6):1168-1172.
［27］Vazquez O, Rutgers M, Ring DC, et al. Fate of the ulnar nerve after operative fixation of distal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma, 2010, 24(7):395-399.
［28］Fajolu O, Iyengar K, Litts CS. Distal humerus fractures: handling of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg (Am), 2012, 37(8):1696-1698.
［29］Seth AK, Baratz ME. Fractures of the elbow∥Trumble TE, Budoff JE, Cornwall R. Hand, elbow & shoulder. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Mosby, 2006:522-531.
［30］Coles CP, Barei DP, Nork SE, et al. The olecranon osteotomy: a six-year experience in the treatment of intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma, 2006, 20(3):164-171.
