Treatment of Displaced Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus in Children in Full Extension and Supination

Abstract

This paper deals with the results of treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children treated by manipulative reduction and fixation in plaster with the elbow in full extension and the forearm in full supination. This method was adopted to prevent the frequent occurrence of cubitus varus deformity and the other complications of this fracture. Various methods are adopted in different centres for treatment of supracondylar fractures of the humerus. The Jones method of fixation of the elbow in full flexion

Flexion type supracondylar humerus fractures: 12 year experience of a pediatric orthopedics clinic

“…Extension splinting or CRPP can be preferred in type 2 fractures. [2,3,9] Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning, open reduction and internal fixation or skeletal traction and delayed percutaneous pinning are common treatment options for type 3 fractures. [10][11][12] Type 3 fractures are more unstable fractures and treatments of these fractures are more difficult due to increased soft tissue injuries which will help and hold the reduction.…”

Analysis of displaced supracondylar fractures in children treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning

“…He concluded that this modality of treatment-produced results that were excellent for Type I, good for Type II and unsatisfactory for Type III fractures. 12 FOWLES et al studied the results of percutaneous pinning of displaced supracondylar fracture of humerus and concluded that percutaneous crossed k-wire fixation is the method of internal fixation for these fractures. The advantage of this method was that the elbow could be put in any degree of flexion making it useful in management of fracture with vascular complication.…”

Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus in Children:A Follow-Up With Particular Reference to Late Results After Severely Displaced Fractures

“…Many modifications of extension treatment have been described. Supporters of the so-called side traction (Maylahn & Fahey 1958, Bates & Taylor 1971 consider this an easy method for the patient, in that it gives sufficient elevation and at the same time a possibility for controlling the forearm, and therefore the rotation of the distal humeral fragments (Windfeld 1948, Madsen 1955, El Sharkawi & Fattah 1965. Madsen (1955) , for instance, has emphasised the significance of reduction with lateral traction and simultaneous lateral rotation of the arm, followed by plaster fixation in the "hurrah position".…”