• Emmanuel M Illical, Dana J Farrell, Peter A Siska, Andrew R Evans, Gary S Gruen, and Ivan S Tarkin.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: eillical@gmail.com.
• Injury. 2014 Oct 1;45(10):1545-8.

ObjectivesTo compare elbow range of motion (ROM), triceps extension strength, and functional outcome of AO/OTA type A distal humerus fractures treated with a triceps-split or -sparing approach.DesignRetrospective review.SettingTwo level one trauma centres.PatientsSixty adult distal humerus fractures (AO/OTA 13A2, 13A3) presenting between 2008 and 2012 were reviewed. Exclusion criteria removed 18 total patients from analysis and three patients died before final follow-up.InterventionPatients were divided into two surgical approach groups chosen by the treating surgeon: triceps split (16 patients) or triceps sparing (23 patients).Main Outcome MeasurementsElbow ROM and triceps extension strength testing were completed in patients after fractures had healed. All patients were also given the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire.ResultsCompared to the triceps-split cohort, the triceps-sparing cohort had greater elbow flexion (sparing 143 ± 7° compared to split 130 ± 12°, p=0.03) and less extension contracture (sparing 6 ± 8° compared to split 23 ± 4°, p<0.0001). Triceps strength compared to the uninjured arm also favoured the triceps-sparing cohort (sparing 88.9 ± 28.3% compared to split 49.4 ± 17.0%, p=0.007). DASH scores were not statistically significant between the two cohorts (sparing 14.5 ± 12.2 compared to split 23.6 ± 22.3, p=0.333).ConclusionsA triceps-sparing approach for surgical treatment of extra-articular distal humerus fractures can result in better elbow ROM and triceps strength than a triceps-splitting approach. Both approaches, however, result in reliable union and similar functional outcome.Level Of EvidenceLevel III.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

33 keywords...

hide…