European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
Percutaneous pinning through the elbow joint versus cross-pinning for paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a retrospective analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Iwata Hidetoshi, Sakai Go, Katsuda Yasuhiro, Funahashi Shinji, Shibata Jun, Hattori Yusuke, Okamoto Hideki, Yamada Kunio, Sekiya Isato, Murakami Hideki, Kawaguchi Yohei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Supracondylar humeral fractures are common in children and require early surgical intervention to prevent complications. Although percutaneous pinning is a standard treatment, the optimal pinning technique remains controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning (group J) and cross-pinning (group C) for paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis included paediatric patients with supracondylar humeral fractures treated at two trauma centres. Group J underwent lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning, whereas group C underwent cross-pinning. Clinical data, including demographics, surgical details, complications, and radiological assessments, were collected and compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Both groups exhibited similar demographic and clinical characteristics, except for the timing of post-operative Kirschner wire removal. No significant differences were found in elbow range of motion or the incidence of complications between groups J and C. Radiologically, there were no significant differences in fracture union or reduction loss between the groups, although group C showed larger Baumann and tilting angles than group J.
CONCLUSIONS: Lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning demonstrated outcomes comparable to those of cross-pinning in paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures. Both techniques resulted in minimal reduction loss, with no cases of ulnar nerve palsy. These findings suggest that lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning is a viable alternative to cross-pinning, potentially reducing the risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis included paediatric patients with supracondylar humeral fractures treated at two trauma centres. Group J underwent lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning, whereas group C underwent cross-pinning. Clinical data, including demographics, surgical details, complications, and radiological assessments, were collected and compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Both groups exhibited similar demographic and clinical characteristics, except for the timing of post-operative Kirschner wire removal. No significant differences were found in elbow range of motion or the incidence of complications between groups J and C. Radiologically, there were no significant differences in fracture union or reduction loss between the groups, although group C showed larger Baumann and tilting angles than group J.
CONCLUSIONS: Lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning demonstrated outcomes comparable to those of cross-pinning in paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures. Both techniques resulted in minimal reduction loss, with no cases of ulnar nerve palsy. These findings suggest that lateral and through-the-elbow joint pinning is a viable alternative to cross-pinning, potentially reducing the risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury.