OPEN REDUCTION OF MEDIAL EPICONDYLE FRACTURES IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: SUPINE VERSUS PRONE POSITION. Issue 7 (30th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Baghdadi, Soroush; Harwood, Kathleen; Arkader, Alexandre; Lawrence, John Todd
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 9:Issue 7(2021)Supplement 3
• Publication Date: 2021-07-30
• Subjects: Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967121S00100
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Operative treatment of medial epicondyle (ME) fractures can be performed in either supine or prone position. In the supine position, visualization and fixation of the fracture is difficult. However, the prone position requires extensive patient repositioning but may improve visualization. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of ORIF of ME fractures between supine and prone positions. Methods: In a retrospective review, patients <18 who underwent open reduction of an acute ME fracture from 2011-2019 were identified. Results and complications were compared between the supine and prone positions. Results: 204 patients were included, with a mean age of 11.7 years. 133(65.1%) were sports injuries, and 67(32.8%) had concomitant dislocation, with 17(8.3%) having an incarcerated fracture. 122(60%) patients were in the supine group, and 82(40%) in prone. The mean wheels in-wheels out time was 113 minutes in the supine group, and 141 minutes in the prone group (P<0.001). Mean tourniquet time was 53.1 and 55 minutes in supine and prone positions (P=0.4). C-arm usage was 27.9 and 26.9 seconds in the supine and prone groups, respectively (P=0.7). Displacement of the fracture on the first post-operative x-rays was 2.06 and 1.1 millimeters for the supine and prone groups (P<0.001). A total of 39(19%) patients had some ROM limitation at follow-up, with the majority (33 patients) having <10° loss of ROM. Five patients (2.5%) underwent 7 reoperations due to stiffness, 2 patients due to tardy ulnar nerve palsy, 2 due to non-union, and 53(26%) had a surgical hardware removal. Surgical position was not predictive of complications/reoperation. All of the nine surgeons (out of 16) who have operated at least one patient in the prone position have changed their preferred surgical position to prone. Conclusion: With the largest study population in the literature, the results of our study show that surgical stabilization of medial epicondyle fractures is safe, with minimal complications. While the prone position requires additional time in the operating room, presumably for positioning, the surgical procedure takes the same time and the prone position allows for a more accurate reduction. While the clinical significance of a 1mm difference in reduction quality is unknown, the observation that no surgeon that has tried the prone position had ever gone back to the supine position suggests that the surgical procedure is technically easier in this position.