Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches for Osteosynthesis of Intraarticular Distal Humerus Fractures and Suggested New Treatment Algorithm for These Fractures

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The standard procedure in treating distal humerus fractures is the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). The surgical approach is still a matter of discussion. The submitted study focuses on comparing the conventional approach with olecranon osteotomy and the paratricipital approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS Since January 2015 a total of 18 patients have been operated on, who met the inclusion criteria of the study on type C distal humerus fracture without the use of olecranon osteotomy. This group of patients was subsequently compared with a control group of patients in whom the olecranon osteotomy was performed in the period 2010-2015. The patients were assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the range of motion and complications, including the need for removal of osteosynthesis material. RESULTS The control group (Group 1), in which 22 patients operated directly by olecranon osteotomy were assessed, was compared with the group of operated patients (Group 2) consisting of 18 patients. When comparing the range of motion and MEPS, no significant difference was found between the groups (flexion: p = 0.519, extension: p = 0.382, MEPS: p = 0.110). Unlike Group 2, in Group 1 the osteosynthesis material of cerclage was removed in 13 cases. DISCUSSION Apart from the complexity of fracture and choice of fixation technique, it is the choice of surgical approach which constitutes another factor having effect on the final elbow function. Basically, the approaches to distal humerus can be divided into 4 groups, namely splitting, reflecting and sparing approaches and olecranon osteotomy which offers the best access to the fracture during fixation and which is recommended by many experts in treating these complex fractures which, however, has its disadvantages such as longer duration of surgery, longer healing time, non-union or malunion, protruding osteosynthesis material and secondary procedures necessary to remove the material. CONCLUSIONS In our study no significant difference in functional outcomes was found between the examined approaches. A difference was identified with respect to protruding material of the cerclage and soft tissue irritation with subsequent removal of osteosynthesis material after the olecranon osteotomy.