Orthopedics

Feature Article 

Olecranon Osteotomy Fixation Following Distal Humerus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: Clinical Results of Plate and Screws Versus Tension Band Wiring

Jack M. Haglin, BS; Ariana Lott, MD; David N. Kugelman, MD; Mackenzie Bird, BS; Sanjit R. Konda, MD; Nirmal C. Tejwani, MD; Kenneth A. Egol, MD

Abstract

Olecranon osteotomy allows for improved visualization of the distal humeral articular surface. This study compared the clinical outcomes of 2 methods of olecranon repair following olecranon osteotomy as part of distal humerus fracture repair. This was a retrospective review of distal humerus fractures treated via a transolecranon approach during a 9-year period. In each case, the olecranon osteotomy was fixed with either tension band wiring (TBW) or plate fixation (PF). Patient demographics, injury information, and surgical management were recorded. Measured outcomes included elbow motion, time to osteotomy union, and postoperative complications. Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) scores were obtained for all patients. Forty-eight patients were included. All patients had intra-articular AO type 13-C2 or 13-C3 distal humerus fractures and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with olecranon osteotomy. Mean documented follow-up was 20.5 months. Twenty-seven patients had fixation of the olecranon osteotomy with TBW, and 21 with PF. Clinically, there were no differences in osteotomy time to union, elbow motion, or MEPI score at final follow-up. However, patients fixed with TBW had greater elbow extension at both 6-month and final follow-up. Complication rates did not differ. Patients undergoing TBW or PF for repair of an olecranon osteotomy following ORIF of intra-articular distal humerus fractures have similar outcomes. Patients undergoing osteotomy PF may experience less terminal elbow extension when compared with those fixed with TBW. Given their similar clinical outcomes, either modality may be considered when selecting a construct for olecranon osteotomy repair as part of comminuted distal humerus fracture repair. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(1):e107–e113.]

Abstract

Olecranon osteotomy allows for improved visualization of the distal humeral articular surface. This study compared the clinical outcomes of 2 methods of olecranon repair following olecranon osteotomy as part of distal humerus fracture repair. This was a retrospective review of distal humerus fractures treated via a transolecranon approach during a 9-year period. In each case, the olecranon osteotomy was fixed with either tension band wiring (TBW) or plate fixation (PF). Patient demographics, injury information, and surgical management were recorded. Measured outcomes included elbow motion, time to osteotomy union, and postoperative complications. Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) scores were obtained for all patients. Forty-eight patients were included. All patients had intra-articular AO type 13-C2 or 13-C3 distal humerus fractures and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with olecranon osteotomy. Mean documented follow-up was 20.5 months. Twenty-seven patients had fixation of the olecranon osteotomy with TBW, and 21 with PF. Clinically, there were no differences in osteotomy time to union, elbow motion, or MEPI score at final follow-up. However, patients fixed with TBW had greater elbow extension at both 6-month and final follow-up. Complication rates did not differ. Patients undergoing TBW or PF for repair of an olecranon osteotomy following ORIF of intra-articular distal humerus fractures have similar outcomes. Patients undergoing osteotomy PF may experience less terminal elbow extension when compared with those fixed with TBW. Given their similar clinical outcomes, either modality may be considered when selecting a construct for olecranon osteotomy repair as part of comminuted distal humerus fracture repair. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(1):e107–e113.]

Comminuted, intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus represent complex and difficult-to-treat fracture patterns. These challenging fractures are uncommon, have intricate surrounding anatomy, and have limited bone stock available for their fixation. In the active patient, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) remains the standard of care for such fractures.1 Several posterior approaches have been described in the literature for fixing the distal humerus, all variations on 3 principal distal humerus approaches: triceps sparing,2,3 triceps splitting,4–6 and olecranon osteotomy.7

Given its superior articular surface exposure, maximum exposure of the surgical site, and minimal impact on extensor muscle mechanisms, the posterior transolecranon approach is common when treating intra-articular distal humerus fractures.8 However, its associated olecranon osteotomy has been cited with a number of complications, including high rates of olecranon hardware prominence and osteotomy nonunion.9 This osteotomy-related complication rate is poorly defined in the literature, and there is controversy regarding the optimal method of fixation for the olecranon osteotomy. Despite this lack of consensus, no study has directly compared methods of olecranon osteotomy fixation immediately following transolecranon ORIF of the distal humerus. As such, this study compares the clinical results of tension band wiring (TBW) and plate fixation (PF) of olecranon osteotomy following transolecranon ORIF of comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures.

Materials and Methods

Patients

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify all patients with comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures (AO types 13-C2 and 13-C3) treated operatively using a transolecranon approach by 1 of 3 orthopedic trauma surgeons (S.R.K., N.C.T., K.A.E.) from January 2007 to January 2017 at 1 academic medical center. In each case, the associated intra-articular, chevron-type olecranon osteotomy was fixed with either TBW or PF (Figure 1). Patients treated with elbow arthroplasty, those treated without osteotomy, and those younger than 18 years were excluded. Patients with less than 6 months of clinical follow-up or those who had not yet healed at the time of final follow-up were likewise excluded. For all remaining eligible patients, patient charts and radiographs were retrieved and reviewed following local institutional review board approval for full retrospective review.

Lateral radiographs following distal humerus open reduction and internal fixation with olecranon osteotomy fixed with tension band wiring (A) and plate fixation (B).

Figure 1:

Lateral radiographs following distal humerus open reduction and internal fixation with olecranon osteotomy fixed with tension band wiring (A) and plate fixation (B).

Collected data included patient demographics, injury details, operative details, functional outcomes, reoperations, and complications. Patient demographics included sex, body mass index, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), smoking status, and mechanism of initial injury. Time to radiographic healing of both the humerus fracture and the olecranon osteotomy site was also recorded. Collected operative details included surgical approach, treatment of the ulnar nerve, and method of olecranon fixation. At all postoperative follow-up visits, elbow flexion/extension and pronation/supination were measured using a goniometer. Both lateral and anteroposterior radiographs of the affected elbow were obtained at all follow-up visits to assess fracture healing. Final function was further assessed with Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) scores obtained for all patients using the functional information recorded in their latest clinical note. This retrospective data collection was performed by 2 independent observers (J.M.H., D.N.K.) not involved with patient care.

Operative Osteotomy Details

The olecranon osteotomy was performed via a chevron osteotomy using a microsagittal saw and osteotome. The osteotomized portion of the olecranon and the triceps were reflected proximally, exposing the comminuted intra-articular fracture fragments. Following acceptable articular reduction and fixation of the distal humerus, the olecranon osteotomy was repaired. For patients fixed with TBW, two 1.6-mm Kirschner wires were drilled in parallel from the dorsal cortex to the anterior cortex of the ulna across the osteotomy site. Next, a 2-mm drill hole was made transversally distal to the osteotomy, where either an 18-gauge or a 20-gauge tension wire was passed. A second tension wire was passed through the triceps dorsal to the Kirschner wires. The wires were tensioned in a figure-of-8 fashion and were cut short, bent, and impacted into the proximal ulna. For patients fixed with PF, the olecranon osteotomy was repaired with either a 4-hole or a 6-hole precontoured proximal ulna plate, or an intraoperatively contoured one-third tubular plate, fixed with 3.5-mm screws.

Statistical Analysis

Data and outcomes were compared between olecranon fixation cohorts using independent t tests, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and Mann–Whitney U tests, with P<.05 considered significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 23.0, software (SPSS, Inc).

Results

Of the 107 consecutive intra-articular distal humerus fractures treated during this time period, a total of 48 adult patients met inclusion criteria. The 59 patients who failed to meet inclusion criteria either underwent total elbow arthroplasty (n=16), underwent ORIF through an approach other than olecranon osteotomy (n=41), or failed to follow up postoperatively (n=2). All included patients were treated for intra-articular AO type 13-C2 or 13-C3 fractures via a transolecranon approach. Eight fractures were open and 40 were closed. Of this cohort, 27 (56.3%) patients had fixation of their olecranon osteotomy with TBW using Kirschner wires, and 21 (43.8%) had fixation of their olecranon osteotomy with PF. Mean follow-up among included patients was 20.5±16.1 months (range, 13–62 months). Fixation groups did not significantly differ regarding any demographic or injury type (Table 1).

Patient Demographics

Table 1:

Patient Demographics

All distal humerus fractures healed by a mean of 19.4±6.6 weeks. All olecranon osteotomies healed by a mean of 16.9 weeks, although 2 TBW patients underwent olecranon delayed union repair with iliac crest bone grafting to achieve healing. Clinically, there were no differences in olecranon osteotomy mean time to union, mean elbow arc of motion at any period, mean pronation/supination arc of motion at any period, or mean patient MEPI score at final follow-up. However, patients with TBW had greater elbow extension at both 6-month (P=.023) and final follow-up when compared with the PF cohort (P=.001) (Table 2). There was no difference in complication rate between the 2 cohorts (Table 3). There was also no significant difference in reoperation rate, because 6 patients from the TBW group and 4 patients from the PF cohort underwent reoperation for various procedures (Table 4).

Functional Outcomes

Table 2:

Functional Outcomes

Complications

Table 3:

Complications

Reoperation Summary

Table 4:

Reoperation Summary

There were no differences in the rates of olecranon delayed union requiring intervention, delayed union not requiring intervention, painful/prominent olecranon hardware without hardware removal, or removal of painful/prominent olecranon hardware. Two patients in the TBW group required symptomatic delayed union repair with iliac crest bone grafting of their olecranon following failure to heal at an average of 19.4 weeks following initial operation, compared with none in the PF cohort (P=.181). Both TBW patients were converted to PF as part of the delayed union repair and went on to heal. Of note, both TBW patients with olecranon delayed union requiring reoperation were daily smokers. A subanalysis comparing daily smokers to nonsmokers demonstrated a significantly longer time to olecranon union among smokers (39.3±18.4 weeks) compared with nonsmokers (13.8±4.7 weeks; P<.001). A similar subanalysis was performed comparing open fractures with closed, and no significant differences were observed. A third subanalysis was performed to compare all outcomes across each of the 3 treating surgeons included in the study, and this analysis revealed no differences between surgeons across any outcome measure.

Likewise, patients who underwent reoperation of any type were compared with patients who did not undergo reoperation. The only measured difference between these cohorts was a longer mean time to olecranon union among the reoperation cohort (22.9±17.4 weeks among patients with reoperation vs 15.0±6.9 weeks among those without reoperation; P=.041).

Three TBW and 4 PF patients developed posttraumatic arthritis. Of these 7 patients developing posttraumatic arthritis, all of them originally had an AO type 13-C3 fracture. One PF patient developed wound breakdown and dehiscence over the olecranon plate and underwent irrigation and debridement with removal of all hardware and secondary closure. Four PF patients and 1 TBW patient developed ulnar nerve neuropathy symptoms postoperatively, which resolved by 1 year. Of these patients, 1 PF patient and 1 TBW patient concurrently developed posttraumatic elbow contracture with heterotopic ossification about the osteotomy site; both elected operative treatment in the form of open elbow release with ulnar nerve transposition and removal of all hardware. One PF patient with ulnar neuropathy symptoms underwent removal of olecranon hardware with ulnar nerve transposition. One PF patient developed nonsymptomatic heterotopic ossification about the osteotomy site. Two PF patients and 1 TBW patient had symptomatic olecranon hardware at their last follow-up but elected not to undergo hardware removal. One PF patient developed a seroma over his olecranon, which was treated with aspiration in the outpatient clinic. In total, 7 (25.9%) TBW and 4 (19.0%) PF patients had olecranon hardware removed (P=.834). Of these, 1 TBW patient and 2 PF patients underwent removal solely for symptomatic olecranon hardware, whereas all other hardware removals involved removal of humeral plates and were performed concomitantly with other procedures.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that repair of an intra-articular chevron osteotomy with either a tension-band construct or a plate-and-screw construct provided for reliable healing in the setting of distal humerus repair. All patients had their humerus fractures heal, and there were no differences regarding olecranon osteotomy time to union. Further, there were no differences regarding total arc of motion or final elbow function evaluated by patient MEPI score between patients who had their olecranon osteotomy fixed with a plate and patients who had their olecranon fixed with TBW.

The olecranon osteotomy has historically been the standard approach for fixing complex fractures of the distal humerus.7,8 However, reports with this approach have been mixed, largely due to the high rate of reported osteotomysite complications following a transolecranon approach. The posterior transolecranon approach used in this study carries several advantages, especially when treating comminuted and complex fractures of the distal humerus.10–15 The primary benefit is maximized visualization of the distal humeral articular surface. In a cadaveric study, Wilkinson and Stanley16 demonstrated that a transolecranon approach to the distal humerus allows for a 63% and 24% increase to visualization of the humeral articular surface when compared with triceps-splitting and triceps-sparing approaches, respectively. This approach also carries less risk for postoperative triceps weakening or evulsion17,18 and allows for earlier elbow joint mobilization postoperatively, reducing the risk of fibrous tissue formation and stiffness.19

Despite these advantages, studies have reported high complication rates related to the osteotomy site.20,21 Specifically, Henley et al20 and Henley22 reported a 31% complication rate with regard to the olecranon osteotomy in their studies, with delayed union/nonunion in 10.3% of patients, and symptomatic hardware about the olecranon in another 21%. Similar findings were reported by McKee et al,21 citing a 27% reoperation rate for hardware removal among olecranon osteotomies following distal humerus ORIF. Further, Gofton et al23 reported an olecranon nonunion rate of 9% among their 22 patients operated with a transolecranon approach.

These results differ from those of Coles et al,18 who reported no olecranon nonunions and an 8% isolated olecranon hardware removal rate among their large 67-patient cohort using an intramedullary screw with supplemental dorsal wire construct to achieve olecranon fixation. This rate of hardware removal is consistent with that of Ring et al,24 who report a 13% isolated olecranon hardware removal rate with a total 27% hardware removal rate, attributing success to their modified K-wire TBW technique for osteotomy fixation. This technique involves drilling of the K-wires obliquely across the osteotomy site with a slight anterior angle, as to engage the anterior ulnar cortex on placement. This anterior angling was used among the current authors' TBW patients.25

These rates reported in the literature are consistent with those observed in the current study. There were 2 olecranon delayed unions requiring intervention in this study, both following TBW of the olecranon osteotomy.

Heterotopic ossification,23 ulnar nerve neuropraxia,17,26 and elbow contracture27,28 are the most common complications associated with comminuted distal humerus fractures and were similarly observed among both PF and TBW patients and occurred at rates similar to those in the literature.7

Further, there was no difference among the overall rate of complications, reoperations, or individual complication rate between cohorts. Additionally, there was no difference in total arc of elbow motion or arc of pronation/supination at any time point, mean time to olecranon union, or final elbow function as evaluated by patient MEPI score. However, the TBW cohort demonstrated significantly greater elbow extension at both 6-month and final follow-up when compared with the PF cohort. The greater extension loss among the PF cohort in this study may be attributable to the increased bulk of the proximal plate along the distal ulna in the olecranon fossa. However, this did not affect total arc of motion when compared with TBW patients, and its clinical import is likely negligible.

Although several studies have compared outcomes for TBW and PF for fixation of isolated olecranon fractures,29,30 this is the first study to directly compare fixation methods following olecranon osteotomy with distal humerus fractures. The study highlights the outcomes achievable following complex intra-articular distal humerus fractures using a posterior transolecranon approach with either PF or TBW fixation of the associated olecranon osteotomy. The need for hardware removal was not uncommon among this cohort and has been considered a drawback to the olecranon osteotomy in the literature. However, the final outcomes among patients who underwent reoperation in this study were not different from those who did not undergo reoperation, and the authors believe the risk of reoperation is balanced against the need to visualize and fix the articular surface, given the complexity of these fractures. Fully addressing the initial distal humerus fracture to the best of the surgeon's ability should take priority with complex fractures of the distal humerus, because residual complications to the distal humerus are associated with much greater morbidity than the potential for secondary olecranon hardware removal.

This study had several limitations. First, this study was subject to inherent weaknesses of a retrospective study, because data were reliant on complete and accurate medical records. Further, elbow flexion/extension and pronation/supination measurements were assessed by 3 different providers, and some degree of inconsistency may exist. It is also difficult to assess the true effect of symptomatic olecranon hardware on hardware removal, because any hardware removal performed concomitantly with another procedure likely had varying degrees of symptom severity and indication for removal. Finally, longer follow-up might have led to more patients developing complications. However, length of follow-up was limited by the retrospective study design, because follow-up was reliant on clinic visits or documentation. Therefore, patients without follow-up beyond their last asymptomatic visit likely went on to experience good function with their elbow, and the follow-up for healthy patients may be under-representative.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing TBW or PF of their olecranon osteotomy following ORIF of intra-articular distal humerus fractures had similar outcomes in this study. Patients undergoing olecranon osteotomy fixed with PF may experience less terminal elbow extension when compared with those fixed with TBW. With either method, reoperation for removal of symptomatic hardware is not uncommon, but good results can be expected even if reoperation is necessary. Given the similar clinical outcomes between the 2 methods of olecranon fixation following distal humerus ORIF, either modality may be considered when selecting a construct for olecranon osteotomy repair as part of comminuted distal humerus fracture repair.

References

  1. Jupiter JB, Neff U, Holzach P, Allgöwer M. Intercondylar fractures of the humerus: an operative approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(2):226–239. doi:10.2106/00004623-198567020-00008 [CrossRef] PMID:3968114
  2. Bryan RS, Morrey BF. Extensive posterior exposure of the elbow: a triceps-sparing approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(166):188–192. PMID:7083671
  3. O'Driscoll SW. The triceps-reflecting anconeus pedicle (TRAP) approach for distal humeral fractures and nonunions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31(1):91–101. doi:10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70130-9 [CrossRef] PMID:10629335
  4. Campbell WC. Incision for exposure of the elbow joint. Am J Surg. 1932;15(1):65–67. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(32)90997-0 [CrossRef]
  5. Van Gorder GW. Surgical approach in supracondylar “T” fractures of the humerus requiring open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1940;22:278–292.
  6. McKee MD, Kim J, Kebaish K, Stephen DJ, Kreder HJ, Schemitsch EH. Functional outcome after open supracondylar fractures of the humerus: the effect of the surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82(5):646–651. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.82B5.0820646 [CrossRef] PMID:10963158
  7. Ring D, Jupiter JB. Fractures of the distal humerus. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31(1):103–113. doi:10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70131-0 [CrossRef] PMID:10629336
  8. Cassebaum WH. Operative treatment of T and Y fractures of the lower end of the humerus. Am J Surg. 1952;83(3):265–270. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(52)90254-7 [CrossRef] PMID:14903375
  9. Cassebaum WH. Open reduction of T & Y fractures of the lower end of the humerus. J Trauma. 1969;9(11):915–925. doi:10.1097/00005373-196911000-00002 [CrossRef] PMID:5351796
  10. Chen G, Liao Q, Luo W, Li K, Zhao Y, Zhong D. Triceps-sparing versus olecranon osteotomy for ORIF: analysis of 67 cases of intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus. Injury. 2011;42(4):366–370. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.09.004 [CrossRef] PMID:20932522
  11. Khalid MU, Saeed KM, Akhter M. A comparison of functional outcome of intercondylar fracture of distal humerus managed by olecranon osteotomy approach versus triceps sparing approach in adults. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65(11) (suppl 3):S119–S122. PMID:26878500
  12. Elmadag M, Erdil M, Bilsel K, Acar MA, Tuncer N, Tuncay I. The olecranon osteotomy provides better outcome than the triceps-lifting approach for the treatment of distal humerus fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(1):43–50. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-1149-y [CrossRef] PMID:23412273
  13. Azboy I, Bulut M, Ancar C, et al. The comparison of triceps-reflecting anconeus pedicle and olecranon osteotomy approaches in the treatment of intercondylar fractures of the humerus. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2016;22(1):58–65. doi:10.5505/tjtes.2015.42948 [CrossRef] PMID:27135080
  14. Zhang C, Zhong B, Luo CF. Comparing approaches to expose type C fractures of the distal humerus for ORIF in elderly patients: six years clinical experience with both the triceps-sparing approach and olecranon osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(6):803–811. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-1983-y [CrossRef] PMID:24777538
  15. Mejía Silva D, Morales de los Santos R, Ciénega Ramos MA, González Pérez C. [Functional results of two different surgical approaches in patients with distal humerus fractures type C (AO)]. Acta Ortop Mex. 2008;22(1):26–30. PMID:18672749
  16. Wilkinson JM, Stanley D. Posterior surgical approaches to the elbow: a comparative anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(4):380–382. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116517 [CrossRef] PMID:11517370
  17. Kinik H, Atalar H, Mergen E. Management of distal humerus fractures in adults. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119(7–8):467–469. doi:10.1007/s004020050023 [CrossRef] PMID:10613242
  18. Coles CP, Barei DP, Nork SE, Taitsman LA, Hanel DP, Bradford Henley M. The olecranon osteotomy: a six-year experience in the treatment of intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(3):164–171. doi:10.1097/00005131-200603000-00002 [CrossRef] PMID:16648697
  19. Schildhauer TA, Nork SE, Mills WJ, Henley MB. Extensor mechanism-sparing paratricipital posterior approach to the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(5):374–378. doi:10.1097/00005131-200305000-00009 [CrossRef] PMID:12759643
  20. Henley MB, Bone LB, Parker B. Operative management of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 1987;1(1):24–35. doi:10.1097/00005131-198701010-00004 [CrossRef] PMID:3506583
  21. McKee MD, Wilson TL, Winston L, Schemitsch EH, Richards RR. Functional outcome following surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humeral fractures through a posterior approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(12):1701–1707. doi:10.2106/00004623-200012000-00003 [CrossRef] PMID:11130643
  22. Henley MB. Intra-articular distal humeral fractures in adults. Orthop Clin North Am. 1987;18(1):11–23. PMID:3796956
  23. Gofton WT, Macdermid JC, Patterson SD, Faber KJ, King GJ. Functional outcome of AO type C distal humeral fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(2):294–308. doi:10.1053/jhsu.2003.50038 [CrossRef] PMID:12671863
  24. Ring D, Gulotta L, Chin K, Jupiter JB. Olecranon osteotomy for exposure of fractures and nonunions of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(7):446–449. doi:10.1097/00005131-200408000-00010 [CrossRef] PMID:15289692
  25. Mullett JH, Shannon F, Noel J, Lawlor G, Lee TC, O'Rourke SK. K-wire position in tension band wiring of the olecranon: a comparison of two techniques. Injury. 2000;31(6):427–431. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(00)00014-0 [CrossRef] PMID:10831740
  26. Holdsworth BJ, Mossad MM. Fractures of the adult distal humerus: elbow function after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(3):362–365. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.72B3.2341427 [CrossRef] PMID:2341427
  27. Ali AM, Hassanin EY, El-Ganainy AE, Abd-Elmola T. Management of intercondylar fractures of the humerus using the extensor mechanism-sparing paratricipital posterior approach. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74(6):747–752. PMID:19205320
  28. Haglin JM, Kugelman DN, Christiano A, Konda SR, Paksima N, Egol KA. Open surgical elbow contracture release after trauma: results and recommendations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(3):418–426. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.023 [CrossRef] PMID:29290605
  29. DelSole EM, Pean CA, Tejwani NC, Egol KA. Outcome after olecranon fracture repair: does construct type matter?Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26(2):153–159. doi:10.1007/s00590-015-1724-0 [CrossRef] PMID:26573486
  30. Ren Y-M, Qiao HY, Wei ZJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of tension band wiring versus plate fixation in olecranon fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11(1):137. doi:10.1186/s13018-016-0465-z [CrossRef] PMID:27842568

Patient Demographics

CharacteristicTotal cohort (N=48)TBW (n=27)PF (n=21)P
Age, mean±SD, y48.8±15.946.1±18.152.6±14.8.201
Male, No.22 (45.8%)12 (44.4%)10 (47.6%).613
Female, No.26 (54.2%)15 (55.6%)11 (52.4%)
CCI, mean±SD0.34±0.530.32±0.610.36±0.47.687
BMI, mean±SD, kg/m223.9±3.323.7±3.624.3±3.0.668
AO type 13-C2 fracture pattern, No.12 (25.0%)7 (25.9%)5 (23.8%).887
AO type 13-C3 fracture pattern, No.36 (75.0%)20 (74.1%)16 (76.2%)
Follow-up, mean±SD, mo20.5±16.119.0±9.220.9±16.7.371

Functional Outcomes

OutcomeMean±SDP

TBW (n=27)PF (n=21)
Time to olecranon union, wk17.0±11.916.8±8.4.867
3-mo elbow arc of motion86.8°±18.2°74.6°±29.8°.131
3-mo pronation/supination arc of motion127.0°±15.1°125.1°±13.7°.679
3-mo elbow extension deficit23.8°±14.2°31.3°±17.2°.111
6-mo elbow arc of motion110.1°±15.2°103.6°±12.9°.221
6-mo pronation/supination arc of motion134.8°±17.0°132.0°±16.1°.723
6-mo elbow extension deficit14.9°±7.1°20.7°±7.3°.023
Final elbow arc of motion120.1°±12.1°115.6°±13.8°.113
Final pronation/supination arc of motion142.7°±17.0°141.1°±14.6°.876
Final elbow extension deficit9.5°±6.6°17.4°±7.4°.001
MEPI score at last follow-up88.7±7.284.7±9.9.149

Complications

FixationNo.

Olecranon delayed union requiring reoperationIsolated osteotomy hardware removalAssociated osteotomy hardware removalaOlecranon delayed unionSuperficial infection with dehiscenceUlnar nerve neuropathyElbow contracture
TBW (n=27)2 (7.4%)1 (3.7%)6 (22.2%)1 (3.7%)0 (0%)1 (3.7%)1 (3.7%)
PF (n=21)0 (0%)2 (9.5%)2 (9.5%)1 (4.8%)1 (4.8%)4 (19.0%)1 (4.8%)
Total (N=48)2 (4.2%)3 (6.3%)7 (14.6%)2 (4.2%)1 (2.1%)5 (10.4%)2 (4.2%)
P.181.391.213.815.315.105.786

Reoperation Summary

ReoperationNo.

TBW (n=27)PF (n=21)Total (N=48)
Required reoperation7 (25.9%)4 (19.0%)11 (22.9%)
Olecranon delayed union repair with ICBG and olecranon fixation exchange2 (7.4%)0 (0%)2 (4.2%)
Irrigation and debridement with removal of all hardware0 (0%)1 (4.8%)1 (2.1%)
Elbow contracture release with HO excisiona1 (3.7%)1 (4.8%)2 (4.2%)
Removal of all hardware3 (11.1%)0 (0%)3 (6.3%)
Removal of olecranon hardware only1 (3.7%)2b (9.5%)3 (6.3%)
Authors

The authors are from NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital (JMH, AL, DNK, MB, SRK, NCT, KAE), New York, and Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (MB, SRK, KAE), Queens, New York; and the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (JMH), Scottsdale, Arizona.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Kenneth A. Egol, MD, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, 301 E 17th St, Ste 1402, New York, NY 10003 ( Kenneth.Egol@nyumc.org).

Received: June 24, 2019
Accepted: December 17, 2019
Posted Online: October 22, 2020

10.3928/01477447-20201007-03

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents