Aim: To compare the functional outcome as well as elbow range of motion (ROM) after triceps splitting and triceps sparing approach for AO/OTA TYPE A distal humerus fractures. Materials and Methods: This is a prospecti...Aim: To compare the functional outcome as well as elbow range of motion (ROM) after triceps splitting and triceps sparing approach for AO/OTA TYPE A distal humerus fractures. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study done at our center between 2011 and 2014. A total of 50 patients presented with extra articular distal humerus fracture (AO/OTA 13 A2, 13A3). Exclusion criteria removed 16 patients from the study while 2 patients died due to medical comorbidities before the final follow up. Out of the remaining 32 patients, they were divided into two groups: triceps splitting (15 patients) and triceps sparing (17 patients). Elbow ROM, along with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire scores, was compared between the two groups. Results: Triceps sparing group had greater elbow flexion (140.0 ± 4.0) compared to triceps splitting group (126.0 ± 10.0) with p Conclusion: As compared to triceps splitting approach, triceps sparing approach results in better elbow ROM with less extension contracture, however both approaches result in similar functional outcome.展开更多
文摘Aim: To compare the functional outcome as well as elbow range of motion (ROM) after triceps splitting and triceps sparing approach for AO/OTA TYPE A distal humerus fractures. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study done at our center between 2011 and 2014. A total of 50 patients presented with extra articular distal humerus fracture (AO/OTA 13 A2, 13A3). Exclusion criteria removed 16 patients from the study while 2 patients died due to medical comorbidities before the final follow up. Out of the remaining 32 patients, they were divided into two groups: triceps splitting (15 patients) and triceps sparing (17 patients). Elbow ROM, along with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire scores, was compared between the two groups. Results: Triceps sparing group had greater elbow flexion (140.0 ± 4.0) compared to triceps splitting group (126.0 ± 10.0) with p Conclusion: As compared to triceps splitting approach, triceps sparing approach results in better elbow ROM with less extension contracture, however both approaches result in similar functional outcome.
