Objective To observe the effectiveness of reduction and fixation by the improved elbow anteromedial approach in treatment of ulna coronoid process fracture. Methods Between January 2010 and December 2014, 13 patients with the ulna coronoid process fracture were treated with reduction and fixation by the improved elbow anteromedial approach. There were 10 males and 3 females with an average age of 37.2 years (range, 18-57 years). Five cases were caused by traffic accident, 7 cases by falling injury from height, and 1 case by object impact injury. Seven cases were the terrible triad of the elbow, 4 cases were the ulna coronoid process and radial head fractures, 1 case was the proximal radius and ulna fractures, and 1 case was the ulna coronoid process and distal radius fractures. According to Regan-Morrey classification criteria, the ulna coronoid process fracture was rated as type Ⅱ in 2 cases and as type Ⅲ in 11 cases. According to O’Driscoll classification criteria, 10 of the 13 cases were anterior coronoid fracture (8 cases of type Ⅱb, 2 of type Ⅱc), and 3 of basal fracture. The operation time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, range of motion (ROM) of the elbow joint, Mayo elbow function index (MEPI) score and fracture healing time were recorded. Results The average operation time was 38.7 minutes (range, 30-55 minutes), and the average amount of intraoperative bleeding was 109.3 mL (range, 90-160 mL). All incisions healed at stage Ⅰ. There was no iatrogenic vascular or nerve injury. All patients were followed up 13-24 months (mean, 16.9 months). All fractures achieved clinical healing. The average healing time was 11.2 weeks (range, 8-16 weeks). There were 2 cases of heterotopic ossification. At last follow-up, the ROM of elbow flexion was 119-145° (mean, 132.4°); the ROM of elbow extension was –8-15° (mean, 7°). The ROM of forearm pronation was 68-90° (mean, 78.6°), and the ROM of forearm supination was 76-90° (mean, 84.3°). At last follow-up, the MEPI score was 70-100; and 9 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good, and 1 case was fair. The excellent and good rate was 92.3%. Conclusion Improved elbow anteromedial approach for the ulna coronoid process fracture can not only avoid the injuries of surrounding blood vessels and nerves, but also perform fracture reduction and fixation under direct vision. It is a safe, simple, and effective treatment method for the ulna coronoid process fracture.
Objective To evaluate effectiveness of proximal femur bionic nail (PFBN) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly compared to the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Methods A retrospective analysis was made on 48 geriatric patients with intertrochanteric fractures, who met the selection criteria and were admitted between January 2020 and December 2022. Among them, 24 cases were treated with PFBN fixation after fracture reduction (PFBN group), and 24 cases were treated with PFNA fixation (PFNA group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as age, gender, cause of injury, side and type of fracture, time from injury to operation, and preoperative mobility score, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Alzheimer’s disease degree scoring, self-care ability score, osteoporosis degree (T value), and combined medical diseases between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of blood transfusions, transfusion volume, length of hospital stay, occurrence of complications, weight-bearing time after operation, and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, walking ability score, mobility score, self-care ability score were recorded and compared between the two groups. And the radiographic assessment of fracture reduction quality and postoperative stability, and fracture healing time were recorded. ResultsThe operations in both groups were successfully completed. All patients were followed up 6-15 months with an average time of 9.8 months in PFBN group and 9.6 months in PFNA group. The operation time was significantly longer in PFBN group than in PFNA group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, number of blood transfusions, transfusion volume, length of hospital stay, change in activity ability score, and change in self-care ability score between the two groups (P>0.05). The weight-bearing time after operation was significantly shorter in PFBN group than in PFNA group (P<0.05), and the postoperative VAS score and walking ability score were significantly better in PFBN group than in PFNA group (P<0.05). Radiographic assessment showed no significant difference in fracture reduction scores and postoperative stability scores between the two groups (P>0.05). All fractures healed and there was no significant difference in fracture healing time between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of complications was significantly lower in PFBN group (16.7%, 4/24) than in PFNA group (45.8%, 11/24) (P<0.05). ConclusionCompared with PFNA, PFBN in the treatment of elderly intertrochanteric fractures can effectively relieve postoperative pain, shorten bed time, reduce the risk of complications, and facilitate the recovery of patients’ hip joint function and walking ability.