Clinical outcomes of triceps reflecting anconeus pedicle and olecranon osteotomy approach for distal humerus intercondylar fractures

BACKGROUND The preferred treatment for distal humeral intercondylar fractures is open reduction and internal fixation. While there is consensus about the posterior approach, several posterior approaches have been developed. It is debatable as to which approach is best. AIM To compare triceps reflecting anconeus pedicle (TRAP) and olecranon osteotomy approaches for internal fixation of distal humeral intercondylar fracture. METHODS In total, 40 cases of Arbeitsgemeinschaft f & uuml;r Osteosynthesefragen/Association of the Study of Internal Fixation type C, closed, and Gustilo type I intercondylar humeral fractures were included. Patients ranged in age from 18 years to 70 years. The patients were randomized into two groups: TRAP group and olecranon osteotomy group, with 20 cases in each. All were followed up at 6 wk, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Functional outcomes were measured in terms of flexion-extension arc, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score. RESULTS The mean age was 43.2 years in the TRAP group and 37.5 years in the olecranon osteotomy group. The mean operative time and mean duration of hospital stay in the TRAP group were significantly higher than in the olecranon osteotomy group (119.5 vs 111.5 min and 9.85 vs 5.45 d, respectively). The mean arc of flexion-extension, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score were comparable without any significant difference in the groups at the 12-month follow-up (107.0 vs 106.2, 18.3 vs 15.7, and 84.2 vs 86.2, respectively). Ulnar paresthesia and superficial infections were comparable in both groups (2 cases vs 3 cases and 3 cases vs 2 cases, respectively). Hardware prominence was significantly higher in the olecranon osteotomy group, mostly due to tension band wiring. CONCLUSION Both approaches were equivalent, but there is a need for further study including higher numbers of subjects and longer study duration to prove the benefits of one approach over the other.