2011
DOI: 10.1097/bpo.0b013e31821addcf
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extension Type II Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures

Abstract: From this radiographic review, it was observed that not all fractures treated with closed reduction and cast immobilization achieved anatomic position and alignment at final follow-up; however, the long-term clinical and radiographic significance of these findings remains unknown.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the four groups who treat children with supracondylar humerus fractures within our city prefers to treat the majority of extension type II fractures with closed reduction and cast immobilization in the emergency department and then close follow-up to determine the need for surgery, while the other practices typically favor planned delayed closed reduction and percutaneous pinning. Operative and nonoperative treatment are both supported in the literature [ 4 , 5 , 7 9 , 13 , 15 , 30 ], although operative management is advocated by the AAOS [ 3 ]. While some may argue that surgical treatment is not required to manage these fractures due to satisfactory long-term results [ 31 ], the need for close follow-up is still important to avoid loss of reduction and malunion in either treatment method, as long-term angular deformity can result in symptomatic cubitus varus or loss of flexion [ 2 , 27 – 29 , 32 38 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One of the four groups who treat children with supracondylar humerus fractures within our city prefers to treat the majority of extension type II fractures with closed reduction and cast immobilization in the emergency department and then close follow-up to determine the need for surgery, while the other practices typically favor planned delayed closed reduction and percutaneous pinning. Operative and nonoperative treatment are both supported in the literature [ 4 , 5 , 7 9 , 13 , 15 , 30 ], although operative management is advocated by the AAOS [ 3 ]. While some may argue that surgical treatment is not required to manage these fractures due to satisfactory long-term results [ 31 ], the need for close follow-up is still important to avoid loss of reduction and malunion in either treatment method, as long-term angular deformity can result in symptomatic cubitus varus or loss of flexion [ 2 , 27 – 29 , 32 38 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple studies have found no difference in complication rates between early versus delayed treatment of a type 2 fracture pattern, allowing outpatient surgery and potentially lower costs to the healthcare system [ 4 6 ]. Closed treatment with reduction and casting may also result in excellent radiographic and clinical outcomes assuming early follow-up and no loss of reduction [ 7 9 ]. Regardless of the definitive treatment, limitations in access to care can jeopardize the feasibility of a delayed surgery, as patients requiring close follow-up may not be able to obtain access to a provider in time to have surgery.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Supracondylar humerus fractures are common injuries in children which often require operative fixation for optimal outcome [ 1 , 3 ]. Previous studies have demonstrated relatively low rates of complications with surgical management of these fractures, leading some authors to suggest routine surgical management of these fractures presenting with any fracture displacement [ 2 , 8 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The shaft condylar angle (SCA) difference of less than 18° is classified as type IIA [4]. Many surgeons advocated closed reduction (CR) and casting as a treatment for a minimally displaced type II fracture (or type IIA) with good results [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. On the other hand, others preferred CRPP for a more severe type II fracture (or type IIB).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%