FRACTURES and OTHER INJURIES

Supracondylar Humeral Fractures in Children:Causes of Changes in the Carrying Angle of the Elbow

“…Growth disturbance has also been mentioned as a possible cause of deformity of the carrying angle following supracondylar humeral fractures in children (Siris 1939, Brewster & Karp 1940, Heryer 1952, Madsen 1955, Cave 1958, Smith 1967, although this is considered an uncommon etiology (Smith 1960). Growth disturbance can be blamed for the change in the carrying angle only if a definite increase of the deformity can be observed during the growth (Langenskiold & Kivilaakso 1967).…”

“…Our observations are evidence in favour of the view that growth disturbances altering the cubital angle occur as result of supracondylar humeral fractures in children, even in cases initially showing no dislocation (Siris 1939). The growth disturbance is usually interpreted as retardation of the growth of the trochlea or the capitulum of the humerus, resulting in valgus or varus deformity, respectively (Siris 1939, Heryer 1952, Cave 1958, Smith 1967, but some authors are of the opinion that a fracture may stimulate the growth of the trochlear epiphysis (Brewster & Karp 1940, Aitken et al 1943, Blount 1955). According to Siris, growth is retarded precisely in cases showing extension of the fracture through the epiphyseal plate into the epiphysis.…”

Injuries of the acromioclavicular joint and current treatment options

“…Of all shoulder joint dislocations, 12% involve the AC Joint (Cave, 1961) and 20% of all shoulder injuries will involve the AC joint (Kocher et al, 1998). In the United States these injuries are most commonly seen in American football and ice hockey on the under surface of the clavicle.…”

The problems of limb replacement

“…Following isolated nerve suture, the period for optimal recovery will obviously depend on the level at which the nerve has been divided. Full recovery usually requires 6 months after suture at the wrist level, I year at the elbow, and 2 years at the axilla (Cave, 1958). It is against this background of the anticipated time of maximal recovery that reinnervation following limb replacement must be judged.…”