Nonoperative Treatment of Both-bone Forearm Shaft Fractures in Children

University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Journal of pediatric orthopedics (Impact Factor: 1.47). 01/2011; 31(1):23-32. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318203205b
Source: PubMed


Forearm shaft fractures are the third most common fracture in children. Although closed reduction and casting is the preferred treatment; outcomes remain variable. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with failure of nonoperative treatment for pediatric complete forearm shaft fractures and to explore the time frame in which failure is likely.
Male patients less than 18 years and female patients less than 17 years of age, who were treated for a complete both-bone forearm shaft fracture between January 2005 and January 2008, were included. A pediatric orthopaedic surgeon evaluated all radiographs to confirm the diagnosis. Fractures were classified as proximal, middle, or distal, based one-third division of the shaft. Thresholds for maximum acceptable angulation for male patients < 10 years and female patients < 8 years were as follows: 10 degrees for proximal-third, 15 degrees for middle-third, 20 degrees for distal-third fractures; for female patients ≥ 8 years and male patients ≥ 10 years, up to 10 degrees was considered acceptable at all the levels. Angulation was measured at initial presentation and at weekly intervals for 4 weeks post fracture. Anteroposterior measurements accounted for the natural bow of the radius. Multivariable logistical regression was performed to identify predictors of failure.
Of the 321 patients identified, 282 underwent closed reduction and casting. The average age of patients was 8.5 years, 63% were male. Fifty-one percent of patients exceeded angulation criteria within the follow-up period. Of those who failed, 55% failed by the end of the first week, and 95% failed by 3 weeks. Odds of failure was greatest in patients ≥ 10 years (odds ratio (OR)=2.79; confidence interval (CI) 95, 1.47-5.29), those with proximal radius fractures (OR=6.81; CI95, 3.28-14.14), and those with initial ulna angulations < 15 degrees (OR=2.94; CI95, 1.49-5.83).
Children with 10 years of age or older, with proximal-third radius fractures, and ulna angulation <15 degrees seem to be at highest risk for failure when treated nonoperatively for both-bone forearm fractures. As the majority of failures occur early, early surgical decision-making is encouraged.
Prognostic Level II.

Download full-text


Available from: Eric Bowman, Apr 09, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Arbitration offices ("Schlichtungsstellen") in Germany are expert panels for the extrajudicial resolution of malpractice claims. The performance of arbitration panel proceedings ("Schlichtungsverfahren") is based on the German medical and insurance jurisdiction. In Germany, and in the United States likewise, malpractice claims involving children concern in most cases fracture treatment followed by appendicitis. Out of 242 panel proceedings with the background of fracture treatment in children malpractice was confirmed in 144 cases (60%). The overall ratio: number of confirmed malpractices to number of all proceedings is 30%. There are remarkable differences between the natural occurrence of the different fracture localisations and the fracture localisation related claims. This ratio amounts for example: clavicula 7 : 1, forearm 2 : 1, femur 1 : 5, elbow region (articular) 1 : 5, humerus supracondylar 1 : 3. 32 arbitration panel proceedings concerning alleged malpractice in the treatment of supracondylar humeral fractures in children were evaluated in regards to diagnosis of fracture type and degree of dislocation, conservative and operative fracture treatment, complications, and malpractice related permanent disabilities. In 20 cases (63%) malpractice was confirmed. The different failures could be classified in: 1) Incorrect interpretation of the X-ray findings, classified as fractures without or with minimal displacement, no reduction, healing with intolerable dislocation; n = 3. 2) Insufficient closed or open fracture reduction, stabilisation and healing with intolerable dislocation; n = 10. 3) Correct primary closed or open reduction, unstable osteosynthesis (loss of pin fixation of the ulnar epicondylus), secondary postoperative rotatory dislocation, cubitus varus; n = 3. 4) Delayed detection of a compartment syndrome of the forearm, no or delayed fasciotomy; n = 3, in two cases resulting in severe Volkmann's contracture. 5) Extensive skin necrosis caused by uncontrolled tourniquet under operation. All malunited fractures, except one, led to cubitus varus, often combined with a restriction (extension/flexion) of the mobility of the elbow joint. No cubitus valgus was found in our series. In eight cases a cubitus varus was treated by valgus osteotomy later on. In other cases this procedure was planned. Adverse events which could not be proven as caused by malpractice, included fracture consolidation in minimal tolerable displacement, n = 3; delayed recurrence of the normal mobility of the elbow joint, n = 2; traumatic cubitus varus caused by primary damage of the humero-ulnar epiphysis, n = 3; pin track infection, n = 1; nerve injuries, n = 10. The concomitant nerve injuries concerned: n. medianus 3, n. ulnaris 2, n. radialis 1, nn. radialis and ulnaris 3, nn. medianus and ulnaris 1. In all these cases the claim was based only or together with other reproaches on the nerve injury, but in no case could a malpractice be confirmed. However it should be mentioned that in some cases a iatrogenic nerve injury could not be excluded definitively. Therefore we always recommend the exploration and documentation of the function of the arm nerves at admittance and immediately after treatment. The applied methods of osteosynthesis were pin fixation, crossed or unilateral radial, n = 30; radial screw, n = 1; elastic stable intramedullary nailing fixation (ESIN), n = 1; fixateur externe (reoperation), n = 1. In no case the method of osteosynthesis was proven as inapplicable or as the cause for the adverse event. Permanent disabilities were considered to be slight in 12 cases (deficient mobility of the elbow joint) and severe in two cases (Volkmann's contracture). Physiotherapy was not found to be beneficial for the restitution of normal mobility of the elbow joint after supracondylar fracture. In at least 7 cases painful physiotherapy was applied, although the X-ray films clearly demonstrated the displaced fracture as the cause of the restricted mobility. In 5 casuistic representations of adverse events after treatment of a supracondylar humeral fracture, the final decision of the arbitration board on the basis of expert reports is illustrated. The results are discussed in order to avoid mistakes in the treatment of supracondylar humeral fracture in children. The appropriate treatment requires exact assessment of the degree and direction of the fracture dislocation, clear definition of the cases in which active treatment, i.e. closed or open reduction and stabilisation, is obligatory, and experience in the operative treatment. A beginning compartment syndrome of the forearm should be detected early by the initial symptoms and immediately treated by fasciotomy.
    Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie 12/2010; 148(6):697-703. DOI:10.1055/s-0030-1250487 · 0.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fractures of the distal third forearm are common fractures in childhood. Most of these fractures can be treated non-operatively by means of closed reduction and immobilization. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate whether above- or below-elbow cast should be considered the first-choice for conservative treatment. A search was performed in multiple databases to identify all the studies comparing above- and below-elbow cast for the treatment of distal third forearm fractures in children. All RCT's or CCT's were assessed for eligibility. Quality was assessed by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group assessment. Data were pooled using RevMan 5.0 Three trials involving a total of 300 participants were included. A total of 142 fractures were treated with a below-elbow cast (BEC) versus 158 with an above-elbow cast (AEC). Loss of reduction was encountered in 17 and 36 cases, respectively [odds ratio 0.44 (0.22-0.87)]. For combined radius and ulna fractures 15 of 97 in the BEC group and 34 out of 122 in the AEC group showed loss of reduction [odds ratio 0.55 (0.26-1.15)]. Children treated with BEC missed less school days [mean difference 1.12 (-1.52 to -0.59)], and encountered less difficulties in daily living [odds ratio 112.41 (6.58-1920.77)]. Due to heterogeneity, the trials are not fully compared. Based on the presented meta-analysis, we conclude that BEC is not inferior to AEC so that this is a valid treatment option for distal third forearm fractures.
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 08/2011; 131(12):1663-71. DOI:10.1007/s00402-011-1363-9 · 1.60 Impact Factor

  • Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie 01/2012; 150(06):648-656. DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1327903 · 0.49 Impact Factor
Show more