Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2013
Floating elbow injuries in adults: prognostic factors affecting clinical outcomes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ditsios Konstantinos, Boutsiadis Achilleas, Papadopoulos Pericles, Karataglis Dimitrios, Givissis Panagiotis, Hatzokos Ippokratis, Christodoulou Anastasios
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Floating elbow fractures in adults are rare and complex injuries with unpredictable outcomes. The present study was designed to assess our experience, analyze possible compilations and illustrate prognostic factors of the final outcome.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, 19 patients with floating elbow fractures were treated in our department (mean follow-up, 26 months). The fractures were open in 10 patients (52.6%), and concomitant nerve palsy was present in 10 patients. Although the term "floating elbow" refers only to concomitant ipsilateral humeral and forearm shaft fractures, we also included injuries with intra-articular involvement. We categorized the patients into 4 groups: group I (10 patients) included shaft fractures of humerus and forearm, group IIa (5 patients) and IIb (1 patient) included partial intra-articular injuries, and group III (3 patients) involved only intra-articular comminuted fractures of the elbow region.
RESULTS: Fracture healing was observed 14 weeks postoperatively, except in 2 patients, in which elbow arthroplasty was applied, and in 1 with brachial artery injury. Nine patients with nerve neuropraxia recovered 4 months postoperatively, and tendon transfers were necessary in 1 patient. Recovery in patients with nerve palsy was worse than in those without nerve injury (Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 73 vs 88.34; Khalfayan score, 72 vs 88.3). In addition, intra-articular involvement (groups II and III) negatively influenced the final clinical outcome compared with isolated shaft fractures (group I; Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 71.1 vs 88.5; Khalfayan score, 72.67 vs 86.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the nature of floating elbow injuries is complex, the presence of nerve injury and intra-articular involvement predispose to worse clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, 19 patients with floating elbow fractures were treated in our department (mean follow-up, 26 months). The fractures were open in 10 patients (52.6%), and concomitant nerve palsy was present in 10 patients. Although the term "floating elbow" refers only to concomitant ipsilateral humeral and forearm shaft fractures, we also included injuries with intra-articular involvement. We categorized the patients into 4 groups: group I (10 patients) included shaft fractures of humerus and forearm, group IIa (5 patients) and IIb (1 patient) included partial intra-articular injuries, and group III (3 patients) involved only intra-articular comminuted fractures of the elbow region.
RESULTS: Fracture healing was observed 14 weeks postoperatively, except in 2 patients, in which elbow arthroplasty was applied, and in 1 with brachial artery injury. Nine patients with nerve neuropraxia recovered 4 months postoperatively, and tendon transfers were necessary in 1 patient. Recovery in patients with nerve palsy was worse than in those without nerve injury (Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 73 vs 88.34; Khalfayan score, 72 vs 88.3). In addition, intra-articular involvement (groups II and III) negatively influenced the final clinical outcome compared with isolated shaft fractures (group I; Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 71.1 vs 88.5; Khalfayan score, 72.67 vs 86.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the nature of floating elbow injuries is complex, the presence of nerve injury and intra-articular involvement predispose to worse clinical outcomes.