Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Distal Humerus Fractures Workup

  • Author: Edward Yian, MD; Chief Editor: Harris Gellman, MD  more...
 
Updated: Oct 02, 2015
 

Laboratory Studies

Preoperative laboratory studies should be patient-specific. They should be performed to medically clear the patient for an operative procedure if one is justified.

Studies should include coagulation studies and hemoglobin level. If the patient's medical condition is in question, then a medical team consultation may be appropriate. Whereas blood loss can be minimized with the intraoperative use of a tourniquet, typing and screening can be performed if the patient is unable to tolerate blood loss.

Next

Imaging Studies

Radiography

The fracture personality, including the bone quality, fracture pattern, level of comminution, articular involvement, displacement, and associated injuries, must be understood completely before treatment is attempted.[13] Multiplane radiographs, including anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views, are appropriate. (See the images below.)

Lateral radiograph of a distal humerus fracture of Lateral radiograph of a distal humerus fracture of the left elbow. Only the intra-articular portion of the lateral condyle is involved.
Anteroposterior radiograph following a distal hume Anteroposterior radiograph following a distal humerus fracture of the right elbow.

AP radiographs should be obtained with the elbow flexed approximately 40° and with the radiographic beam directed perpendicular to the distal humeral surface. This allows disengagement of the olecranon from its fossa and permits a better view of the distal humerus. In the pediatric population, the Baumann angle—defined as the angle between the lateral condylar physeal line and the axis of the humerus—is often measured using AP radiographs. It must be compared to the contralateral side.

In addition, displacement of the anterior, posterior, or supinator fat pad can suggest a fracture. The posterior fat pad is the most sensitive for pathology. Skaggs et al demonstrated a 76% incidence of occult elbow fracture with a positive posterior fat pad sign.[14] A medial epicondylar fracture should be suspected if a fragment is visible within the joint and the epicondyle is not visible.

Oblique radiographs can aid in assessing multiplane involvement of the fracture lines and comminution.

Many times, traction views allow for better visualization of the fracture lines and fragments. Mobile fluoroscopy can be helpful as well, especially in cases associated with seemingly minor fractures and instability.

Other radiographic views of the elbow can be obtained to exclude associated injuries. A radial head-capitellar view is a semilateral view of the elbow with the beam aimed 45° toward the ipsilateral shoulder joint. With the thumb of the hand pointed upward, the radial head can be magnified without any overlap of the proximal ulna. The coronoid view can be obtained to define the coronoid process. The radiographic beam is directed at the lateral elbow and pointed 45° away from the ipsilateral shoulder.

Computed tomography

Computed tomography (CT) of the distal humerus can be performed to further analyze the fracture pattern. Thin-cut coronal and axial cuts at 1 mm intervals should be obtained. Three-dimensional reconstructions can be obtained but rarely contribute much to the overall assessment of the fracture. The integrity of the central column, as well as comminution and preexisting arthritic changes within the joint surfaces, should be observed. Often, CT scans reveal details that cannot be viewed on simple radiographs.

A study suggested that additional CT could improve intraobserver reliability but did not improve interobserver agreement, indicating that interpretation is a reflection of training, knowledge, and experience.[13]  Another study found that although adding CT to radiography did not improve interobserver reliability, it did change fracture classification and treatment planning.[15]

Other imaging modalities

If questions regarding vascular status arise, duplex Doppler ultrasonography or angiography can be performed. Ultrasonography has also been shown to be helpful in differentiating stable from unstable pediatric lateral condylar fractures. Vocke-Hell et al showed effective use of ultrasonography in determining which nonossified fractures involved the joint surface and required operative intervention.[16]

Previous
Next

Staging

No perfect classification system has been developed for distal humerus fractures that allows accurate direction for treatment considerations and prognostic outcome. The many classifications that have been proposed often overlap.

Mehne and Jupiter separate fractures based on column involvement and whether the fractures are intra-articular, intracapsular, or extracapsular.[17, 18] Their classification system incorporates features of many previously described fracture types.

For single-column involvement, the Milch classification is often used. It classifies fracture patterns as having medial or lateral condylar involvement and further characterizes them as either low (type I) or high (type II), depending on how proximally the fracture started before traveling obliquely across the trochlea. These fractures usually occur from an abduction or adduction force.

Kuhn et al described a divergent bicolumn fracture pattern that can occur with an axial force from the olecranon in patients with fenestrated olecranon/coronoid fossae.[19]

Capitellar and trochlear fractures are seen infrequently, occur in the coronal plane, and can be classified into one of the following subtypes:

  • Type I - These are isolated capitellar fractures involving a large portion of cancellous bone; they are known as Hahn-Steinthal fractures
  • Type II - These are fractures involving the anterior cartilage, with a thin-sheared layer of subchondral bone; they are known as Kocher-Lorenz fractures
  • Type III fractures - These are comminuted osteochondral fractures
  • Type IV fractures - Classified by McKee et al, these involve the capitellum and one half of the trochlea; they often result in the double-arc sign observed on lateral radiographs

For bicolumn variants, the classification system introduced by Mehne and Matta takes into consideration the height of the fracture through each column, as follows:

  • Y and T fractures begin in the center of the trochlea, secondary to trochlear impaction into the olecranon-trochlear ridge, causing propagation of the fracture vertically and across each column; if a fracture involves both columns at a distal level, it may enter the olecranon and coronoid fossae and produce comminuted articular fragments too small to reconstruct
  • H-type fractures may produce a free-floating trochlear fragment, with the medial column fractured in two places; this can increase the risk of avascular necrosis of the articular fragment; the system does not identify comminution or fragment displacement

Many continue to use the simple classification proposed by Riseborough and Radin.[4] It differentiates fractures on the basis of displacement and rotation. The use of this classification system is limited because it does not account for the large variety of fracture patterns. Riseborough and Radin's classification is as follows:

  • Type I - Fractures involving minimally displaced articular fragments
  • Type II - Fractures involving displaced fragments that are not rotated
  • Type III - Fractures involving displaced and rotated fragments
  • Type IV - Fractures involving comminuted fracture fragments

The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO)-Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (ASIF) classification is the most commonly used system for clinical research and treatment. The Orthopaedic Trauma Association and the International Society for Fracture Repair expanded the AO-ASIF classification to provide a more detailed system for reproducibility. It contains 38 different fractures of the distal humerus and separates the patterns into groups and subgroups based on the specific fracture propagation and involvement.

In this system, subgroups are based on the fracture comminution and orientation. For example, a unicondylar fracture or tangential fracture of a single condyle would be a group B fracture, while a bicondylar fracture with extensive comminution of the condyles and columns would be a group C3 fracture. The group classification is as follows:

  • Group A - Extra-articular fractures
  • Group B - Partially articular fractures
  • Group C - Entirely intra-articular fractures

The classification system most commonly used for pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures is the Gartland classification, which is based on the degree of displacement. Skaggs et al found a high interobserver reliability with this classification system and an overall κ value of 0.74.[20] The Gartland classification system is as follows:

  • Type I - Nondisplaced fractures
  • Type II - Minimally displaced fractures with an intact posterior cortex
  • Type III - Completely displaced fractures with complete cortical disruption

Pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures can also be classified as extension-type and flexion-type fractures, depending on the angulation of the distal fragment.

Lateral condylar physeal fractures can be differentiated on the basis of either the anatomic location of the fracture or the amount of displacement. The Milch classification is as follows:

  • Type I (Salter-Harris type IV) - Describes the fracture extending lateral to the trochlea through the capitulotrochlear groove
  • Type II (Salter-Harris type II) - Describes the fracture line penetrating to the trochlea, producing elbow instability

Medial condylar physeal fractures also are classified according to the Milch classification, as follows:

  • Type I - Salter-Harris type II fracture
  • Type II - Salter-Harris type IV fracture

Fracture separation of the distal humeral epiphysis also has been described. (In some cases, separation of the epiphysis with an attached portion of the metaphysis may occur.) DeLee et al classified this type of fracture into the following three groups[21] :

  • Group A - These fractures involve patients aged 1 year or younger with Salter-Harris type I physeal injuries
  • Group B - These fractures involve children aged 1-3 years in whom ossification of the lateral condyle epiphysis is evident
  • Group C - These fractures occur in children aged 3-7 years and produce a metaphyseal flag with the distal fragment
Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Edward Yian, MD Consulting Staff, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Group Orange County

Edward Yian, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Thomas R Hunt III, MD Professor and Chairman, Joseph Barnhart Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine

Thomas R Hunt III, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Orthopaedic Association, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, Southern Orthopaedic Association, AO Foundation, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association for Hand Surgery, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Mid-America Orthopaedic Association

Disclosure: Received royalty from Tornier for independent contractor; Received ownership interest from Tornier for none; Received royalty from Lippincott for independent contractor.

Chief Editor

Harris Gellman, MD Consulting Surgeon, Broward Hand Center; Voluntary Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Surgery, University of Miami, Leonard M Miller School of Medicine; Clinical Professor of Surgery, Nova Southeastern School of Medicine

Harris Gellman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Medical Acupuncture, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Arkansas Medical Society, Florida Medical Association, Florida Orthopaedic Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Peter M Murray, MD Professor and Chair, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; Director of Education, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Jacksonville; Consultant, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Consulting Staff, Nemours Children's Clinic and Wolfson's Children's Hospital

Peter M Murray, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, Orthopaedic Research Society, Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association for Hand Surgery, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Florida Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Madhav Karunakar, MD Consulting Surgeon, Section of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical Center

Madhav Karunakar, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and AO Foundation

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Caravaggi P, Laratta JL, Yoon RS, Biasio JD, Ingargiola M, Frank MA, et al. Internal Fixation of the Distal Humerus: A Comprehensive Biomechanical Study Evaluating Current Fixation Techniques. J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Jul 29. [Medline].

  2. Eastwood WJ. The T-shaped fracture of the lower end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg. 1937. 19:364-9.

  3. Evans EM. Supracondylar-Y fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1953 Aug. 35-B(3):371-5. [Medline].

  4. Riseborough EJ, Radin EL. Intercondylar T fractures of the humerus in the adult. A comparison of operative and non-operative treatment in twenty-nine cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jan. 51(1):130-41. [Medline].

  5. Lambotte A. Chirurgie operatoire des fractures. Paris: Masson et Cie; 1913.

  6. Henley MB. Intra-articular distal humeral fractures in adults. Orthop Clin North Am. 1987 Jan. 18(1):11-23. [Medline].

  7. Wang KC, Shih HN, Hsu KY, et al. Intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus: routine anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve in a posterior operative approach. J Trauma. 1994 Jun. 36(6):770-3. [Medline].

  8. McKee MD, Wilson TL, Winston L. Functional outcome following surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humeral fractures through a posterior approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Dec. 82-A(12):1701-7. [Medline].

  9. Jupiter JB, Mehne DK. Fractures of the distal humerus. Orthopedics. 1992 Jul. 15(7):825-33. [Medline].

  10. Jupiter JB, Goodman LJ. The management of complex distal humerus nonunion in the elderly by elbow capsulectomy, triple plating, and ulnar nerve neurolysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992. 1:37-42.

  11. Bashyal RK, Chu JY, Schoenecker PL, Dobbs MB, Luhmann SJ, Gordon JE. Complications after pinning of supracondylar distal humerus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009 Oct-Nov. 29(7):704-8. [Medline].

  12. Mighell M, Virani NA, Shannon R, Echols EL Jr, Badman BL, Keating CJ. Large coronal shear fractures of the capitellum and trochlea treated with headless compression screws. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jan-Feb. 19(1):38-45. [Medline].

  13. Doornberg J, Lindenhovius A, Kloen P, et al. Two and three-dimensional computed tomography for the classification and management of distal humeral fractures. Evaluation of reliability and diagnostic accuracy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Aug 2006. 88(8):1795-801. [Medline].

  14. Skaggs DL, Mirzayan R. The posterior fat pad sign in association with occult fracture of the elbow in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Oct. 81(10):1429-33. [Medline].

  15. Nolan BM, Sweet SJ, Ferkel E, Udofia AA, Itamura J. The Role of Computed Tomography in Evaluating Intra-Articular Distal Humerus Fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015 Sep. 44 (9):E326-30. [Medline].

  16. Vocke-Hell AK, von Laer L, Slongo T, et al. Secondary radial head dislocation and dysplasia of the lateral condyle after elbow trauma in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001 May-Jun. 21(3):319-23. [Medline].

  17. Mehne DK, Jupiter JB. Fractures of the distal humerus. Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, et al, eds. Skeletal Trauma. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1992. vol 2: 1146.

  18. Mehne DK, Matta J. Bicolumn fractures of the adult humerus. Paper presented at: 53rd Annual Meeting of the AAOS; 1986; New Orleans, LA.

  19. Kuhn JE, Louis DS, Loder RT. Divergent single-column fractures of the distal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Apr. 77(4):538-42. [Medline].

  20. Skaggs DL, Hale JM, Bassett J. Operative treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. The consequences of pin placement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 May. 83-A(5):735-40. [Medline].

  21. DeLee JC, Wilkins KE, Rogers LF, et al. Fracture-separation of the distal humeral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980 Jan. 62(1):46-51. [Medline].

  22. Pooley J, Salvador Carreno J. Total elbow joint replacement for fractures in the elderly-Functional and radiological outcomes. Injury. 2015 Sep 8. [Medline].

  23. Tian W, He C, Jia J. Total elbow joint replacement for the treatment of distal humerus fracture of type c in eight elderly patients. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015. 8 (6):10066-73. [Medline].

  24. Phadnis J, Banerjee S, Watts AC, Little N, Hearnden A, Patel VR. Elbow hemiarthroplasty using a "triceps-on" approach for the management of acute distal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Aug. 24 (8):1178-86. [Medline].

  25. Pirker ME, Weinberg AM, Höllwarth ME, et al. Subsequent displacement of initially nondisplaced and minimally displaced fractures of the lateral humeral condyle in children. J Trauma. June 2005. 58(6):1202-7. [Medline].

  26. Cobb TK, Morrey BF. Total elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Jun. 79(6):826-32. [Medline].

  27. Chalidis B, Dimitriou C, Papadopoulos P, Petsatodis G, Giannoudis PV. Total elbow arthroplasty for the treatment of insufficient distal humeral fractures. A retrospective clinical study and review of the literature. Injury. 2009 Jun. 40(6):582-90. [Medline].

  28. Mehlman CT, Strub WM, Roy DR. The effect of surgical timing on the perioperative complications of treatment of supracondylar humeral fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Mar. 83-A(3):323-7. [Medline].

  29. Xie X, Qin H, Shen L, Zeng B, An Z. Open reduction and bi-columnar internal fixation of intra-articular distal humerus fractures through a combined medial and lateral approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013 Aug 28. [Medline].

  30. Laporte C, Thiongo M, Jegou D. Posteromedial approach to the distal humerus for fracture fixation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006 Aug. 72(4):395-9. [Medline].

  31. Ruan HJ, Liu JJ, Fan CY, Jiang J, Zeng BF. Incidence, management, and prognosis of early ulnar nerve dysfunction in type C fractures of distal humerus. J Trauma. 2009 Sep 30. [Medline].

  32. Bryan RS, Morrey BF. Extensive posterior exposure of the elbow. A triceps-sparing approach. Clin Orthop. 1982 Jun. (166):188-92. [Medline].

  33. Livani B, Belangero WD, Castro de Medeiros R. Fractures of the distal third of the humerus with palsy of the radial nerve: management using minimally-invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Dec. 88(12):1625-8. [Medline].

  34. Brouwer KM, Guitton TG, Doornberg JN, Kloen P, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Fractures of the medial column of the distal humerus in adults. J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Mar. 34(3):439-45. [Medline].

  35. Lee SK, Kim KJ, Park KH, Choy WS. A comparison between orthogonal and parallel plating methods for distal humerus fractures: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013 Aug 7. [Medline].

  36. Schemitsch EH, Tencer AF, Henley MB. Biomechanical evaluation of methods of internal fixation of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 1994 Dec. 8(6):468-75. [Medline].

  37. Lee SS, Mahar AT, Miesen D, et al. Displaced pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures: biomechanical analysis of percutaneous pinning techniques. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Jul-Aug. 22(4):440-3. [Medline].

  38. Mansat P, Morrey BF. The column procedure: a limited lateral approach for extrinsic contracture of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Nov. 80(11):1603-15. [Medline].

  39. Jupiter JB. The management of nonunion and malunion of the distal humerus--a 30-year experience. J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Nov-Dec. 22(10):742-50. [Medline].

  40. LaPorte DM, Murphy MS, Moore JR. Distal humerus nonunion after failed internal fixation: reconstruction with total elbow arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2008 Oct. 37(10):531-4. [Medline].

  41. Hastings H 2nd, Graham TJ. The classification and treatment of heterotopic ossification about the elbow and forearm. Hand Clin. 1994 Aug. 10(3):417-37. [Medline].

  42. Eberl R, Eder C, Smolle E, Weinberg AM, Hoellwarth ME, Singer G. Iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury after pin fixation and after antegrade nailing of supracondylar humeral fractures in children. Acta Orthop. 2011 Oct. 82(5):606-9. [Medline].

  43. Hall J, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Use of a hinged external fixator for elbow instability after severe distal humeral fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Aug. 14(6):442-5. [Medline].

  44. Dormans JP, Squillante R, Sharf H. Acute neurovascular complications with supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1995 Jan. 20(1):1-4. [Medline].

  45. Cramer KE, Green NE, Devito DP. Incidence of anterior interosseous nerve palsy in supracondylar humerus fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 1993 Jul-Aug. 13(4):502-5. [Medline].

  46. Oh CW, Park BC, Ihn JC, et al. Fracture separation of the distal humeral epiphysis in children younger than three years old. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000 Mar-Apr. 20(2):173-6. [Medline].

  47. Aitken GK, Rorabeck CH. Distal humeral fractures in the adult. Clin Orthop. 1986 Jun. (207):191-7. [Medline].

  48. Breen T, Gelberman RH, Leffert R, et al. Massive allograft replacement of hemiarticular traumatic defects of the elbow. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1988 Nov. 13(6):900-7. [Medline].

  49. Brown RF, Morgan RG. Intercondylar T-shaped fractures of the humerus. Results in ten cases treated by early mobilisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1971 Aug. 53(3):425-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  50. Cohen MS, Hastings H 2nd. Post-traumatic contracture of the elbow. Operative release using a lateral collateral ligament sparing approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Sep. 80(5):805-12. [Medline].

  51. Greenspan A, Norman A, Rosen H. Radial head-capitellum view in elbow trauma: clinical application and radiographic-anatomic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984 Aug. 143(2):355-9. [Medline].

  52. Hastings H 2nd, Engles DR. Fixation of complex elbow fractures, part I. General overview and distal humerus fractures. Hand Clin. 1997 Nov. 13(4):703-19. [Medline].

  53. Heim D, Regazzoni P, Perren SM. Current use of external fixation in open fractures: external fixator - what next?. Injury. 1993. 23:S1-S35.

  54. Helfet DL, Hotchkiss RN. Internal fixation of the distal humerus: a biomechanical comparison of methods. J Orthop Trauma. 1990. 4(3):260-4. [Medline].

  55. Helfet DL, Schmeling GJ. Bicondylar intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus in adults. Clin Orthop. 1993 Jul. (292):26-36. [Medline].

  56. Heyd R, Strassmann G, Schopohl B, et al. Radiation therapy for the prevention of heterotopic ossification at the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Apr. 83(3):332-4. [Medline].

  57. Ilahi OA, Strausser DW, Gabel GT. Post-traumatic heterotopic ossification about the elbow. Orthopedics. 1998 Mar. 21(3):265-8. [Medline].

  58. Kirk P, Goulet JA, Freiberg A. A biomechanical evaluation of fixation methods for fractures of the distal humerus. Orthop Trans. 1990. 14:674.

  59. Kuntz DG Jr, Baratz ME. Fractures of the elbow. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999 Jan. 30(1):37-61. [Medline].

  60. Mast J, Jakob R, Ganz R. Planning and Reduction Technique in Fracture Surgery. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1-10.

  61. McKee M, Jupiter J, Toh CL, et al. Reconstruction after malunion and nonunion of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus. Methods and results in 13 adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Jul. 76(4):614-21. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  62. McKee MD, Jupiter JB, Bamberger HB. Coronal shear fractures of the distal end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Jan. 78(1):49-54. [Medline].

  63. Milch H. Fractures and fracture dislocations of the humeral condyles. J Trauma. Sep 1964. 15:592-607. [Medline].

  64. Morrey BF, Adams RA. Semiconstrained elbow replacement for distal humeral nonunion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Jan. 77(1):67-72. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  65. Muller ME, Allgower M, Schneider R, et al. 3rd ed. Manual of Internal Fixation: Techniques Recommended by the AO-ASIF Group. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1991. 411-52.

  66. O'Driscoll SW. The triceps-reflecting anconeus pedicle (TRAP) approach for distal humeral fractures and nonunions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000 Jan. 31(1):91-101. [Medline].

  67. Ring D, Jupiter JB. Complex fractures of the distal humerus and their complications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Jan-Feb. 8(1):85-97. [Medline].

  68. Stover MD, Wilber JH. Nonunions of the distal humerus: open reduction and internal fixation. Semin Arthroplasty. 2001. 12:127-34.

  69. Van Gorder GW. Surgical approach in supracondylar fractures of the humerus requiring open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg. 1940. 22:278.

  70. Viola B, Hastings H. Ectopic ossification about the elbow. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2000. 370:62-85.

  71. Watson-Jones R. Fractures and Joint Injuries. 4th ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1955. 534.

  72. Webb LX. Distal humeral fractures in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1996 Nov. 4(6):336-44. [Medline].

  73. Wilkins KE, Beaty JH, Chambers HG. Fractures and dislocations of the elbow region. Rockwood CA Jr, Wilkins KE, Beaty JH, eds. Fractures in Children. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. 759.

 
Previous
Next
 
Radiograph of a supracondylar-intracondylar distal humerus fracture. Note the posteromedial and posterolateral column plate placement used for reconstruction with the chevron osteotomy.
Lateral radiograph of a supracondylar-intracondylar distal humerus fracture. Note the distal extent of the contoured plate placed extra-articularly.
Radiograph of a supracondylar-intracondylar humerus fracture. Note the ipsilateral radial head fracture fixed through a posterior incision.
Lateral radiograph of a supracondylar-intracondylar distal humerus fracture with an ipsilateral radial head fracture.
Anteroposterior radiograph of a pediatric type III supracondylar humerus fracture. Note the lateral pinning.
Lateral and medial pinning of a type III extension-type supracondylar humerus fracture.
Lateral radiograph after open reduction and pinning of a type III supracondylar humerus fracture.
Lateral radiograph of a distal humerus fracture of the left elbow. Only the intra-articular portion of the lateral condyle is involved.
Anteroposterior radiograph following a distal humerus fracture of the right elbow.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.