Is Supine Position Superior to Prone Position in the Surgical Pinning of Supracondylar Humerus Fracture in Children?

Background: Supracondylar humerus fracture (SCHF) is a frequent injury in pediatric ages. Closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation is a common treatment of displaced SCHF. Surgery is usually performed in the supine position; otherwise the prone position allows an easier fracture reduction and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vito Pavone, Andrea Vescio, Maria Riccioli, Annalisa Culmone, Pierluigi Cosentino, Marco Caponnetto, Sara Dimartino, Gianluca Testa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020-07-01
Series:Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/5/3/57
Description
Summary:Background: Supracondylar humerus fracture (SCHF) is a frequent injury in pediatric ages. Closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation is a common treatment of displaced SCHF. Surgery is usually performed in the supine position; otherwise the prone position allows an easier fracture reduction and a safe placement of pins. The aim of study is to compare the clinical and radiographic results of the treatment of displaced SCHF, comparing two different intra-operative positionings. Methods: 59 SCHF affected children were retrospectively divided into supine (Group 1; <i>n</i> = 34) and prone (Group 2; <i>n</i> = 25), according to intraoperative position. All treated subjects were clinically evaluated according to Flynn’s criteria and Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and radiographically, including the measurement of the Baumann angle. Results: Clinically, Group 1, according Flynn’s criteria, had excellent cosmetic outcome in 32 subjects (94.1%). Mean MAYO Score was 96.0 ± 3.8. Group 2, according Flynn’s criteria, had excellent cosmetic outcomes in 23 subjects (92.0%). Mean MAYO Score was 97.8 ± 3.3. Radiographically, mean difference of Baumann’s angle between the injured limb and the normal limb was 5.5° ± 1.0° in Group 1 and 5.1° ± 1.1° in Group 2. Conclusion: Both supine and prone positioning achieved a satisfying outcome with similar results in joint function recovery and complications.
ISSN:2411-5142