Olecranon osteotomy vs. triceps-sparing for open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of distal humerus intercondylar fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Olecranon Osteotomy Exposure for Distal Humeral Fracture Treatment

Background

Olecranon osteotomy (OO) is commonly utilized to improve exposure when treating intra-articular distal humeral fractures. A chevron-shaped osteotomy facilitates reduction and increases surface area for healing1. Following distal humeral fracture reduction and fixation, the OO fragment is fixed with a precontoured plate. The OO technique yields comparable outcomes to alternative techniques1,2.

Description

The technique is performed as follows. (1) Imaging is reviewed and preoperative planning is performed. (2) The patient is positioned in the lateral decubitus position with the operative extremity placed over a bolster. (3) A longitudinal posterior skin incision is centered just medial or lateral to the tip of the olecranon. Full-thickness skin flaps are raised medially and laterally. (4) The ulnar nerve is identified and mobilized for later anterior subcutaneous transposition. (5) An OO is performed at the non-articular "bare area" of the trochlear notch with an oscillating saw and completed with an osteotome. (6) Open reduction and internal fixation of the distal humerus is performed. (7) The osteotomy fragment is reduced, and a precontoured plate is applied. (8) A small longitudinal slit in the distal triceps over the proximal edge of the plate decreases plate prominence and is repaired with suture. (9) The subcutaneous tissues and skin are closed in the usual manner.

Alternatives

Alterative techniques include extra-articular OO, triceps splitting, triceps reflecting, and lateral para-olecranon combined with a medial approach. Multiple drill holes and a thin osteotome can help mitigate the kerf created by the oscillating saw. Alternative fixation methods include a predrilled 6.5-mm intramedullary screw, a tension band construct, suture fixation, or a one-third tubular plate.

Rationale

The OO technique provides improved exposure when compared with alternative techniques, enabling accurate reduction and fixation of distal humeral fractures1-3. Wilkinson and Stanley found that OO exposed the distal humeral articular surface to a greater degree than the triceps-splitting and triceps-reflecting approaches3. OO has not been associated with triceps weakness, unlike some of the alternative techniques2.

Expected Outcomes

The incidence of good-to-excellent outcomes is similar when comparing the techniques for exposure of intra-articular distal humeral fractures4. Osteotomies united in all patients in 2 reported series, totaling 84 cases1,2. Removal of symptomatic hardware used in OO fragment fixation can occur in a small subset of patients1,2.

Important Tips

Provisionally size a precontoured plate and fix it on the olecranon to aid in later reduction and fracture fixation.The bare area is the desired position for the OO because of its natural lack of cartilage5,6. This non-articular bare area is located just distal to the deepest portion of the trochlear notch, approximately 2 to 2.5 cm distal to the olecranon tip5,6.An (apex-distal) chevron osteotomy angle of ∼130° will help to keep the osteotomy within the non-articular bare area6.Beginning on the dorsal surface of the ulna, directly posterior to the bare area, an oscillating saw is utilized to create a chevron osteotomy to subchondral bone, perpendicular to the long axis of the ulna5,6.The OO is completed by fracturing through the osteochondral surface, which leaves an irregular chondral cancellous surface that can accurately interdigitate. This facilitates later reduction and stability of the osteotomy.Anatomic articular reduction of the OO is not solely judged on the dorsal cortical bone because of the kerf removed by the saw blade. Instead, examination of the articular surface of the trochlear notch is the primary assessment of reduction.Placement of suture through the proximal portion of the plate aids in the repair of the longitudinal split of the distal triceps.Successful treatment of distal humeral fractures requires accurate reduction and rigid fixation aided by adequate exposure achieved through OO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ORIF = open reduction and internal fixationOT = occupational therapyHWR = hardware removalK-wire = Kirschner wireROM = range of motion.

Combined Medial and Lateral Approach Versus Paratricipital Approach in Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Type C Distal Humerus Fracture: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

Olecranon osteotomy and paratricipital approaches were widely used in the treatment of type C distal humerus fracture but some disadvantages exist, so a combined medial and lateral approach was designed. The objective of this study was to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes of combined medial and lateral approach with the paratricipital approach in open reduction and internal fixation of type C distal humerus fractures.

METHODS

From May 2018 to April 2020, 37 patients with type C distal humerus fracture who accepted open reduction and internal fixation in our hospital were enrolled in this study. All cases were randomly divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: combined medial and lateral approach group (19 cases), paratricipital approach group (18 cases). All of the patients received open reduction and double vertical plates fixation. The operation and follow-up indexes, including operation time, blood loss, incision length, triceps muscle strength, flexion-extension arc of elbow and forearm rotation arc, were recorded and compared. Caja score was used to assess the quality of fractures reduction. Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was used to evaluate the elbow function in the follow-up. Complications such as incision infection, ulnar nerve injury, degenerative osteoarthritis, and heterotopic ossification were analyzed.

RESULTS

The differences in age, gender, and AO classification of fractures between two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The sum of medial and lateral incision length of combined approach group was longer than the midline incision of paratricipital approach group (15.4 ± 0.8 vs. 14.6 ± 0.8, p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in operation time (103.5 ± 10.2 vs. 106.0 ± 8.8, p > 0.05), blood loss (71.3 ± 24.5 vs. 72.8 ± 24.6, p > 0.05), and Caja score (16.05 ± 5.67 vs. 15.56 ± 5.66, p > 0.05). During the follow-up, the MEPS of combined approach group was higher than that of paratricipital approach group at 3 months postoperatively (80.5 ± 5.7 vs. 68.9 ± 8.1, p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in MEPS at 6 months postoperatively (83.9 ± 6.6 vs. 79.7 ± 7.0, p > 0.05) and at the last follow-up (86.8 ± 7.1 vs. 86.9 ± 7.7, p > 0.05) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in triceps muscle strength (p > 0.05), flexion-extension arc (126.8 ± 5.3 vs. 128.9 ± 6.0, p > 0.05), and forearm rotation arc (163.2 ± 5.3 vs. 163.6 ± 4.8, p > 0.05) at the last follow-up. Although the incidence of complication of combined approach group (15.8%) was lower than that of paratricipital approach group (22.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The combined medial and lateral approach was an effective and safe way of open reduction and internal fixation for type C distal humerus fractures. Compared with the paratricipital approach, the combined medial and lateral approach could restore the elbow function more quickly postoperatively, and the long-term results were comparable.

Comparison of olecranon osteotomy and paratricipital approach in distal humerus intra-articular fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcomes of the paratricipital approach (PT) and olecranon osteotomy (OO) for the treatment of distal humerus intra-articular fracture have been reported. However, there is no consensus regarding which approach is better in terms of functional outcomes and complications. This study aimed to compare the operation time, functional outcomes, and complications of OO and PT.

METHODS

The databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published before June 1, 2021. We performed synthetic analysis of the operation time, functional outcomes, and incidence of complication after the conduct of OO group or PT group in patients with distal humerus intra-articular fractures.

RESULTS

Five studies were included representing a total of 243 patients who underwent surgery for distal humerus intra-articular fractures. A pooled analysis showed that there was a longer operation time in the OO group compared with the PT group (mean difference [MD] = 13.32, 95% CI: 3.78-22.87; P = .006). There was no significant difference between the functional outcomes of the OO and PT groups (elbow flexion: MD = 2.4, 95% CI: -0.82 to 5.79, P = .14; elbow extension: MD = 0.36, 95% CI: -2.20 to 2.92, P = .78; elbow arc of motion: MD = 0.40, 95% CI: -4.05 to 4.84, P = .86; Mayo Elbow Performance score: MD = -1.37, 95% CI: -4.73 to 1.98, P = .42). The incidence of infection was significantly higher in the OO group compared with that of the PT group (odds ratio [OR] = 3.82, 95% CI: 1.03-14.16, P = .04). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of the heterotopic ossification and ulnar neuropathy (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 0.51-6.71, P = .35 and OR = 2.74, 95% CI: 0.60-12.48, P = .19, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Since the choice of surgical approach does not influence outcomes, surgeons can base their choice of approach on the basis of their own experience and familiarity with the procedure and the need to visualize the entire articular surface in complex intra-articular fracture patterns.