Cast immobilisation in situ versus open reduction and internal fixation of displaced medial epicondyle fractures in children between 7 and 16 years old. A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Tero Hämäläinen, Matti Ahonen, Ilkka Helenius, Jenni Jalkanen, Markus Lastikka, Yrjänä Nietosvaara, Anne Salonen, Juha-Jaakko Sinikumpu, Petra Grahn, Tero Hämäläinen, Matti Ahonen, Ilkka Helenius, Jenni Jalkanen, Markus Lastikka, Yrjänä Nietosvaara, Anne Salonen, Juha-Jaakko Sinikumpu, Petra Grahn

Abstract

Introduction: Medial epicondyle fracture of the humerus is a common injury in childhood. There is uniform agreement that minimally displaced fractures (dislocation ≤2 mm) can be treated nonoperatively with immobilisation. Open fractures, fractures with joint incarceration or ulnar nerve dysfunction require surgery. There is no common consensus in treatment of closed medial epicondyle fractures with >2 mm dislocation without joint incarceration or ulnar nerve dysfunction. We hypothesise that there is no difference in treatment outcomes between nonoperative and operative treatment.

Methods and analysis: This is a multicentre, controlled, prospective, randomised noninferiority study comparing operative treatment to non-operative treatment of >2 mm dislocated paediatric medial epicondyle fractures without joint incarceration or ulnar nerve dysfunction. A total of 120 patients will be randomised in 1:1 ratio to either operative or nonoperative treatment. The study will have a parallel nonrandomised patient preference arm. Operative treatment will be open reduction and internal fixation. Nonoperative treatment will be upper limb immobilisation in long arm cast for 4 weeks. Data will be collected at baseline and at each follow-up up to 2 years. Quick-DASH is used as primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported pain, differences in range of motion, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, cosmetic visual analogue scale and Mayo Elbow Performance Score.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) ethical board HUS/1443/2019. Each study centre has obtained their own permission for the study. A written authorisation from legal guardian will be acquired and the child will be informed about the trial. Results of the trial will be disseminated as published articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration: The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov with registration number NCT04531085.

Keywords: elbow & shoulder; orthopaedic sports trauma; paediatric orthopaedic & trauma surgery; paediatric orthopaedics; paediatric surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: IH reports grants from Medtronic and Stryker. IH is consulting surgeon at Medtronic. J-JS is consulting surgeon at Bioretec Ltd. None of the other authors reports any conflict of interest.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study.

References

    1. Grahn P, Hämäläinen T, Nietosvaara Y, et al. . Comparison of outcome between nonoperative and operative treatment of medial epicondyle fractures. Acta Orthop 2021;92:114–9. 10.1080/17453674.2020.1832312
    1. Flynn J, Skaggs D, Waters P. Rockwood & Wilkins Fractures in Children. 8th edn. Wolters Kluwer, 2014.
    1. Louahem DM, Bourelle S, Buscayret F, et al. . Displaced medial epicondyle fractures of the humerus: surgical treatment and results. A report of 139 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:649–55. 10.1007/s00402-009-1009-3
    1. Hyvönen H, Korhonen L, Hannonen J, et al. . Recent trends in children's elbow dislocation with or without a concomitant fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:294. 10.1186/s12891-019-2651-8
    1. Gottschalk HP, Eisner E, Hosalkar HS. Medial epicondyle fractures in the pediatric population. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012;20:223–32. 10.5435/JAAOS-20-04-223
    1. Smith FM. Medial epicondyle injuries. J Am Med Assoc 1950;142:396–402. 10.1001/jama.1950.02910240014004
    1. Blount W. Fractures in children. London: Williams & Wilkins, 1955.
    1. Maylahn DJ, Fahey JJ. Fractures of the elbow in children; review of three hundred consecutive cases. J Am Med Assoc 1958;166:220–8. 10.1001/jama.1958.02990030018005
    1. Bede WB, Lefebvre AR, Rosman MA. Fractures of the medial humeral epicondyle in children. Can J Surg 1975;18:137–42.
    1. Tarallo L, Mugnai R, Fiacchi F, et al. . Pediatric medial epicondyle fractures with intra-articular elbow incarceration. J Orthop Traumatol 2015;16:117–23. 10.1007/s10195-014-0310-2
    1. Lee H-H, Shen H-C, Chang J-H, et al. . Operative treatment of displaced medial epicondyle fractures in children and adolescents. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:178–85. 10.1016/j.jse.2004.07.007
    1. Pezzutti D, Lin JS, Singh S, et al. . Pediatric medial epicondyle fracture management: a systematic review. J Pediatr Orthop 2020;40:e697–702. 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001532
    1. Baety J, Kasser J. Chapter 15 in Rockwood & Wilkins Fractures in Children. 8th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippicott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.
    1. Kamath AF, Baldwin K, Horneff J, et al. . Operative versus non-operative management of pediatric medial epicondyle fractures: a systematic review. J Child Orthop 2009;3:345–57. 10.1007/s11832-009-0192-7
    1. Lawrence JTR, Patel NM, Macknin J, et al. . Return to competitive sports after medial epicondyle fractures in adolescent athletes: results of operative and nonoperative treatment. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:1152–7. 10.1177/0363546513480797
    1. Axibal DP, Carry P, Skelton A, et al. . No difference in return to sport and other outcomes between operative and Nonoperative treatment of medial Epicondyle fractures in pediatric upper-extremity athletes. Clin J Sport Med 2018;1. 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000666
    1. Urbaniak GC, Plous S. Research Randomizer 2011.
    1. Edmonds EW. How displaced are "nondisplaced" fractures of the medial humeral epicondyle in children? Results of a three-dimensional computed tomography analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:2785–91. 10.2106/JBJS.I.01637
    1. O'Driscoll SWM, Lawton RL, Smith AM. The "moving valgus stress test" for medial collateral ligament tears of the elbow. Am J Sports Med 2005;33:231–9. 10.1177/0363546504267804
    1. Flynn T. User’s 220 guide to the musculoskeletal examination: Fundamentals for the evidence-based clinician. Buckner, Kentucky: Evidence in Motion, 2008.
    1. Bell-Krotoski J. “Pocket filaments” and specifications for the semmes-weinstein monofilaments. Journal of Hand Therapy 1990;3:26–31. 10.1016/S0894-1130(12)80366-8
    1. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, et al. . Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1038–46. 10.2106/JBJS.D.02060
    1. Varni JW, Seid M, Rode CA. The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care 1999;37:126–39. 10.1097/00005650-199902000-00003
    1. Morrey B. The elbow and its disorders. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1993.
    1. Kazmers NH, Qiu Y, Yoo M, et al. . The minimal clinically important difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH instruments in a Nonshoulder hand and upper extremity patient population. J Hand Surg Am 2020;45:399–407. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.12.002
    1. Aasheim T, Finsen V. The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments. normative values in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2014;39:140–4. 10.1177/1753193413481302
    1. International Committee of medical Journal editors. defining the role of authors and contributors. Available:

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj