Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 37399

Original article / research
Table of Contents - Year : 2017 | Month : February | Volume : 11 | Issue : 2 | Page : RC13 - RC16

Clinico-radiological Outcome Analysis of Parallel Plating with Perpendicular Plating in Distal Humeral Intra-articular Fractures: Prospective Randomised Study RC13-RC16

Ramachandran Govindasamy, Vishal Shekhawat, Ramesh Chandra Banshiwal, Rajender Kumar Verma

Correspondence
Dr. Ramachandran Govindasamy,
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedics,
Pims Medical College, Pondicherry-605014, India.
E-mail: mail2ram8544@gmail.com

Introduction: The distal humeral fractures are common fractures of upper limb and are difficult to treat. These fractures, if left untreated or inadequately treated, leads to poor outcomes. Management of distal humeral fractures are pertained to many controversies and one among them is position of plates.

Aim: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with intra-articular distal humerus fractures, treated using parallel and perpendicular double plating methods.

Materials and Methods: A total of 38 patients with distal humerus fractures, 20 in perpendicular plating group (group A) and 18 in parallel plating group (group B), were included in this prospective randomised study. At each follow-up patients were evaluated clinically and radiologically for union and the outcomes were measured in terms of Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) consisting of pain intensity, range of motion, stability and function. MEP score greater than 90 is considered as excellent; Score 75 to 89 is good; Score 60 to 74 is fair and Score less than 60 is poor.

Results: In our study, 15 patients (75%) in group A, and 13 patients (72.22%) in group B achieved excellent results. Two patients (10%) in group A and 4 patients (22.22%) in group B attained good results. Complications developed in 2 patients in each groups. No significant differences were found between the clinical outcomes of the two plating methods.

Conclusion: Neither of the plating techniques are superior to the other, as inferred from the insignificant differences in bony union, elbow function and complications between the two plating techniques.