$open vs. closed fracture$

$open vs. closed fracture$ $open vs. closed fracture$

Supracondylar humerus fractures are usually caused by a child catching themselves from a fall with their arm stretched out in front of them. This is a type of elbow fracture that almost always affects kids.

$open vs. closed fracture$

If you break your humerus right above your elbow, you might have what’s called a supracondylar fracture. Some types of fractures are classified by how they happen: Some fractures are classified by the shape or pattern of the break line: Your healthcare provider will assign your fracture a type or classification depending on how your humerus is broken.

$open vs. closed fracture$

We do not endorse non-Cleveland Clinic products or services. Advertising on our site helps support our mission. All rights reserved.Cleveland Clinic is a non-profit academic medical center. Overall, our use of a two-staged approach involving temporary external fixation, followed with ORIF or FWF achieved low complication rates and good functional recovery.ĪOFAS score Fine wire fixator ORIF Open fracture Pilon fracture Weight bearing.Ĭopyright © 2022 The Authors. Most ORIF-treated subgroups in either open or closed pilon fractures showed better primary and secondary outcomes than FWF-treated subgroups, yet few were statistically significant. All occurred more frequently in FWF-treated patients. Common complications for open fractures were non-union (24%), post-traumatic arthritis (16%) for closed fractures they were post-traumatic arthritis (24%), superficial infection (21%). Statistically significant differences were seen in the following cases: ORIF-treated 43B closed fracture subgroup had shorter time to PWB and FWB (p<0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively), ORIF-treated 43C closed fractures had shorter time to union (p = 0.005). The majority of ORIF subgroups, open and closed fractures, also had shorter time to PWB, FWB, time to union, and follow-up. The difference was not statistically significant apart from 12-month AOFAS score of 43C open fractures (p = 0.003) and in 43B closed fractures 3 and 6 months post-injury (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Higher AOFAS scores were seen in ORIF groups of both open and closed fractures, compared to FWF groups. Interobserver agreement was high for bone union time (kappa=0.882) and AO/OTA class (kappa=0.807). Secondary outcomes included time to partial weight-bear (PWB) and full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time, and complications during the follow-up time. Primary outcome was AOFAS score at 3, 6, and 12-months post-injury. This retrospective study was conducted at a major trauma centre including 135 patients over a 6-year period. We aim to highlight differences in outcomes and complications between open and closed pilon fractures, and between patients treated by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or fine wire fixator (FWF) for open and closed fracture subgroups. Current literature is varied, with no universal treatment algorithm. The high complication rate and long recovery times presents a challenge for surgeons and patients. Despite the low incidence of pilon fractures amongst lower limb injuries, their high impact nature presents difficulties in surgical management and recovery.

$open vs. closed fracture$

Open vs. closed fracture