Review of pediatric functional outcomes measures used to evaluate surgical management in pediatric patients with an upper extremity fracture

Is Replantation Associated With Better Hand Function After Traumatic Hand Amputation Than After Revision Amputation?

BACKGROUND

Replantation is an established treatment for traumatic upper extremity amputation. Only a few studies, however, have assessed the patient-reported outcomes of replantation, and the findings of these studies have been conflicting.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is replantation associated with better hand function than revision amputation? (2) Is replantation associated with better health-related quality of life, less painful cold intolerance, and more pleasing hand esthetics than revision amputation after a traumatic hand amputation?

METHODS

In this retrospective, comparative study, we collected the details of all patients who sustained a traumatic upper extremity amputation and were treated at the study hospital. Between 2009 and 2019, we treated 2250 patients, and we considered all patients who sustained a traumatic amputation of two or more digital rays or a thumb as potentially eligible. Based on that, 15% (334 of 2250) were eligible; a further 2% (8 of 334) were excluded because of a subsequent new traumatic amputation or bilateral amputation, and another 22% (72 of 334) refused participation, leaving 76% (254 of 334) for analysis here. The primary outcome was the DASH score. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (EuroQOL-5D [EQ-5D-5L] Index), painful cold intolerance (the Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity score), and hand esthetics (the Michigan Hand Questionnaire aesthetic domain score). The minimum follow-up time for inclusion was 18 months. Patients were classified into two treatment groups: replantation (67% [171 of 254], including successful replantation in 84% [144 of 171] and partially successful replantation in 16% [27 of 171], in which some but not all of the replanted tissue survived), and revision (complete) amputation (33% [83 of 254], including primary revision amputation in 70% [58 of 83] and unsuccessful replantation followed by secondary amputation in 30% [25 of 83]). In this cohort, replantation was performed if possible, and the reason for choosing primary revision amputation over replantation was usually an amputated part that was too severely damaged (15% [39 of 254]) or was unattainable (2% [4 of 254]). Some patients (3% [8 of 254]) refused to undergo replantation, or their health status did not allow replantation surgery and postoperative rehabilitation (3% [7 of 254]). Gender, age (mean 48 ± 17 years in the replantation group versus 50 ± 23 years in the revision amputation group; p = 0.41), follow-up time (8 ± 4 years in the replantation group versus 7 ± 4 years in the revision amputation group; p = 0.18), amputation of the dominant hand, smoking, extent of tissue loss, or presence of arterial hypertension did not differ between the groups. Patients in the replantation group less frequently had diabetes mellitus (5% [8 of 171] versus 12% [10 of 83]; p = 0.03) and dyslipidemia (4% [7 of 171] versus 11% [9 of 83]; p = 0.04) than those in the revision group and more often had cut-type injuries (75% [129 of 171] versus 60% [50 of 83]; p = 0.02).

RESULTS

After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, injury type, extent of tissue loss before treatment, and accident of the dominant hand, replantation was not associated with better DASH scores than revision amputation (OR 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.33]; p = 0.42). After controlling for potential cofounding variables, replantation was not associated with better EQ-5D-5L Index scores (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.56 to 1.55]; p = 0.55), differences in Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity scores (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.51 to 1.44]; p = 0.79), or superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire esthetic domain scores (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.43 to 1.26]; p = 0.26) compared with revision amputation.

CONCLUSION

Replantation surgery was conducted, if feasible, in a homogenous cohort of patients who underwent amputation. If the amputated tissue was too severely damaged or replantation surgery was unsuccessful, the treatment resulted in revision (complete) amputation, which was not associated with worse patient-reported outcomes than successful replantation. These results contradict the assumed benefits of replantation surgery and indicate the need for credible evidence to better guide the care of these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Treatment and Outcome of Supracondylar Humeral Fractures in Children Over 10 Years of Age at the Time of Injury: A Review of 60 Cases

OBJECTIVES

To assess the treatment and outcomes of supracondylar humeral fractures (SHFs) in children older than 10 years of age at the time of injury.

METHODS

The study analyzed clinical data from 60 patients who sustained SHF, all over the age of 10 years, were analyzed. The patients included 49 males and 11 females with a mean age of 10.9 ± 0.9 years (range, 10 to 14.5). All patients underwent surgical treatment under general anesthesia. Closed reduction (CR) and percutaneous fixation were the primary treatment, with open reduction and internal fixation being employed only in cases CR was unsuccessful. The study assessed the healing of fractures by measuring the radiographic angles, including the carrying angle (RCA), Baumann's angle (BA), and metaphyseal-diaphyseal angle (MDA) on anteroposterior radiographs of the elbow joint. In addition, the study evaluated whether the anterior humeral line (AHL) appropriately passed through the middle third of the capitellum. The final follow-up visit used the Mayo Elbow Performance Index score (MEPI) and Flynn's criteria to analyze the recovery of elbow function.

RESULTS

There were 15 (25%) SHF type II, 17 (28.3%) type III and 28 (46.7%) type IV. Of the 60 patients, 56 (93.3%) underwent successful CR, whereas 4 (6.7%) required open reduction and internal fixation because of an unsuccessful CR. The final follow-up showed the average BA as 72° ± 5.3°, the average MDA as 88.3° ± 2.8°, and the average RCA as 9.6° ± 3.9°. The AHL bisected accurately the capitellum in 59 cases (98.3%). The average range of elbow flexion-extension was 146.6° ± 8.6°, whereas the average MEPI score was 99.9 ± 0.6; 98.3% (n=59) were rated as excellent and 1.7% (n=1) were rated as good. According to Flynn's criteria, 86.7% had an excellent outcome (n=52), 10% had a good outcome (n=6), and 3.3% had a poor outcome (n=2). Only 1 patient (1.7%) experienced redisplacement. Eight cases of nerve injury were reported, with 7 involving the radial nerve and 1 involving the ulnar nerve; all resolved spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

CR and percutaneous fixation have been shown to be effective in treating SHF in 93.3% of children aged 10 years old and older at the time of injury, with favorable radiographic and functional outcomes and a low risk of secondary displacement. Open reduction should only be considered when CR is ineffective.

Kirschner wire versus external fixation in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in older children and adolescents: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic effects of Kirschner wire fixation and external fixation in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in older children and adolescents.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of older children and adolescents who underwent surgery at our institution for proximal humeral fractures between April 2014 and May 2022. One group (n = 28) underwent fracture reduction and Kirschner wire fixation, and the other group (n = 23) underwent external fixation. During the follow-up, the differences in shoulder joint function between the two groups were compared by analysing Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick DASH) and Constant-Murley scores. Postoperative complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

The operation time of the Kirschner wire group was shorter than that of the external fixation group (69.07 ± 11.34 min vs. 77.39 ± 15.74 min, P = 0.33). The time to remove the fixator in the external fixation group was shorter than that in the Kirschner wire group (6.74 ± 1.57 vs. 7.61 ± 1.22, P = 0.032). The Quick DASH score and Constant-Murley score of the patients in the external fixation group were significantly better than those in the Kirschner wire group at 3 months after surgery (5.63 ± 4.33 vs. 8.93 ± 6.40, P = 0.040; 93.78 ± 2.43 vs. 91.75 ± 2.15, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the Quick DASH score or Constant-Murley score between the patients in the external fixator group and those in the Kirschner wire group at 9 months after the operation (2.77 ± 3.14 vs. 3.17 ± 3.68, P = 0.683; 97.39 ± 1.80 vs. 96.57 ± 2.15, P = 0.152). The most common complication of the two groups was pin tract infection. The incidence rate of infection was higher in the external fixation group than that in the Kirschner wire group (9 vs. 4, P = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

Both Kirschner wire fixation and external fixation of N-H III and IV proximal humeral fractures in older children and adolescents produce good outcomes. External fixation is a preferred surgical treatment option for paediatric proximal humerus fractures because early mobilization of the affected limb can be realized.

Treatment of Pediatric Intercondylar Humerus Fracture With External Fixation and Percutaneous Pinning After Closed Reduction

BACKGROUND

It is uncommon for young children to suffer an intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus. Although many approaches have been described to manage, there is no specific and accepted treatment protocol for such fracture patterns. This study aimed to identify the incidence of intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus in the pediatric population and report the clinical outcome of external fixation and percutaneous pinning in such injury patterns.

METHODS

Pediatric patients under the age of 14 years who had an intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus treated with external fixation and percutaneous pinning between January 2013 and December 2018 at the author's Wuhan Union Hospital were retrospectively evaluated. The detailed baseline information of the patients, operating time, time to union time, and carrying angle difference (CAD) of the injured extremity were collected. During the follow-up visit, clinical results were evaluated using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the Flynn criteria.

RESULTS

A total of eight patients (2 women and 6 men) with an average age of 8 years (5-12 years) who had an intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus (1 C2 and 7 C1) were included. All the patients achieved union, and the average MEPS score was 95 points 24 months after the surgery.

CONCLUSION

The intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus in children is rare, and closed reduction and external fixation is a viable treatment option, especially for the C1 type of fracture pattern.