Low and high body mass index and lower numbers of screws in the articular segment are risk factors for non-union of distal humeral fractures in the elderly: A multi-center retrospective study (TRON study).

Background: Distal humerus fracture in the elderly is a challenging fracture for orthopedic surgeons. Non-union is one of the serious complications of distal humerus fracture after surgery. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to estimate the incidence of distal humeral non-union after open reduction and internal fixation, determine factors related to non-union, and compare the postoperative results of cases with non-union to cases with the union. Methods: Among 423 patients diagnosed with distal humeral fracture and who were treated by surgical therapy in 2010-2020 from our database called TRON. Only 190 subjects met the inclusion criteria. We performed a logistic regression analysis with the presence of non-union as the response variable to examine risk factors. We compare the Mayo Elbow Performance Scores of cases with non-union to cases with the union. Results: Non-union occurred after surgery in 15 patients (7.9%). The logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index<20 kg/m2 and ≥25 kg/m2, and ≤3 screws in the articular segment were significant explanatory factors for non-union (odds ratio 10.4 and 47.8, respectively). The Mayo Elbow Performance Scores were significantly worse in patients with non-union. Discussion: Low and high body mass index and three or fewer screws in the articular segment might be risk factors for non-union of distal humerus fracture in the elderly. Non-union is associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ulnar Nerve Neuropathy After Surgery for Intraarticular Distal Humerus Fractures: An Analysis of 116 Patients.

PURPOSE: To identify the incidence and the factors associated with a postoperative ulnar nerve neuropathy in patients who had undergone open reduction and internal fixation for intraarticular distal humerus fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 116 patients who had undergone surgery between January 2011 and December 2020. Age, sex, BMI, mechanism of injury, open or closed fracture, operation time, tourniquet time, and nerve injury at the final examination were collected from medical charts. We essentially used the paratricipital approach. In cases in which the reduction of intraarticular bone fragments was difficult, olecranon osteotomy was used. Ulnar nerve function was graded according to a modified system of McGowan. We conducted logistic regression analysis to investigate factors of neuropathy using items identified as statistically significant in univariate analysis as explanatory variables. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (29.3%) had persistent neuropathy at the final follow-up. In the modified McGowan classification, 28 patients had grade 1 and 6 patients had grade 2 neuropathy. Olecranon osteotomy emerged as a distinct explanatory variable for the prophylaxis of ulnar nerve neuropathy in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.73). Anterior transposition, however, was not a statistically significant factor (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-4.56). CONCLUSIONS: Olecranon osteotomy was the only independent factor associated with preventing the occurrence of ulnar nerve neuropathy. Ulnar nerve transposition might not be associated with prevention of ulnar nerve neuropathy. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

A less invasive operative method using a medial cannulated cancellous screw and single plate fixation for the treatment of transcondylar fracture of the humerus in elderly patients in multicenter (TRON group) study.

BACKGROUND: Double plate fixation for transcondylar fracture (TCF) tends to be more invasive to the soft tissue, and often carries a higher risk of postoperative complications, including ulnar nerve neuropathy. This study presents the outcomes of TCF of the distal humerus between patients treated with a single plate and cannulated cancellous screw fixation and patients treated with double plate fixation. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2021, 371 cases involving treatment of distal humeral fracture were recorded in our multicenter (named TRON group) database. Patients of ≥ 65 years of age with TCF treated with opeb n reduction and internal fixation were included. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the Mayo elbow performance score, range of motion, and total elbow arc joint. Complications included fracture-related infection (FRI) and ulnar neuropathy. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the average operative time (CCS group vs. Plate group: 119.0 min vs. 186.5 min; p < 0.001) and average tourniquet time (CCS group vs. Plate group: 91.5 min vs. 121.0 min; p < 0.001). FRI occurred as a complication in the Plate group (n = 6). The rates of FRI did not differ to a statistically significant extent (CCS group vs. Plate group: 0% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.477). No patients underwent reoperation. The rate of sensory symptoms in the Plate group was higher than that in the CCS group (CCS group: none [n = 25], numbness [n = 1] vs. Plate group: none [n = 57], numbness [n = 15], sensory depression [n = 2]; p = 0.039). DISCUSSION: Among patients of ≥ 65 years of age with TCF, the clinical outcomes of patients treated with medial CCS and lateral/posterolateral plate did not differ from those of patients who received double plate fixation, and the former treatment was associated with significantly fewer complications, including ulnar nerve palsy. In addition to double plate fixation, this less invasive method of medial CCS and single plate fixation should be considered as a treatment option for TCF in elderly patients.

Clinical comparison of double-plate fixation by the perpendicular plate method versus parallel plate method for distal humeral fracture: a multicenter (TRON group) study.

INTRODUCTION: Double-plating methods are popular, with perpendicular and parallel plate methods being widely used surgical method for the rigid fixation of distal humeral fracture (DHF). However, which plate method is better for DHF remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes including the incidences of complications and reoperation between the two plate methods. METHODS: We extracted 383 patients with DHF undergoing surgery between 2011 and 2020 from our multicenter database, which is named TRON. We divided the subjects into two groups: perpendicular plating group (Group A) and parallel plating group (Group B). To adjust for baseline differences between the groups, patients were matched for age, sex, olecranon osteotomy, AO type, and type of injury. We assessed the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) at 3 and 6 months and the last follow-up month as the clinical outcome. We investigated the incidences of complications and reoperations in both groups. RESULTS: After matching, each group comprised 50 patients. There was no significant difference between Group A versus Group B in MEPS score at each time point. The incidence of implant removal in Group B was higher than that in Group A (26.5% vs 50%, p = 0.023). DISCUSSION: Although there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes or complications between the two groups, the incidence of implant removal was higher in Group B than in Group A. In the parallel plate technique, where the plates have to be placed in areas with thin subcutaneous soft tissue, the incidence of implant removal might be high due to the discomfort caused by the implant.