Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Surgical interventions for treating distal humeral fractures in adults

  1. Yan Wang1,
  2. Qi Zhuo1,*,
  3. Peifu Tang1,
  4. Wei Yang2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 31 JAN 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 1 AUG 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009890.pub2


How to Cite

Wang Y, Zhuo Q, Tang P, Yang W. Surgical interventions for treating distal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD009890. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009890.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Chinese PLA General Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing, Beijing, China

  2. 2

    Chinese PLA General Hospital, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing, Beijing, China

*Qi Zhuo, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Beijing, Beijing, 100853, China. qizhuo301@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 31 JAN 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 1 Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS): 0 to 100 (best outcome).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 2 Excellent or good MEPS at 2 years.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 3 Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, Hand score (DASH): 0 to 100 (worst outcome).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 4 Reoperation rate (treatment received analysis)).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 5 Treatment failure (conversion and reoperation) (intention-to-treat analysis).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 6 Adverse events.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 7 Range of motion at 2 years (degrees).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 8 Duration of operation (minutes).
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Open reduction - internal fixation (ORIF) versus total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), Outcome 9 Length of hospital stay (days).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Perpendicular versus parallel double plate fixation, Outcome 1 Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) at 2+ years: 0 to 100 (best outcome).
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Perpendicular versus parallel double plate fixation, Outcome 2 Excellent or good results from MEPS.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Perpendicular versus parallel double plate fixation, Outcome 3 Re-operation.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Perpendicular versus parallel double plate fixation, Outcome 4 Adverse events.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Perpendicular versus parallel double plate fixation, Outcome 5 Range of motion (degrees).
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Perpendicular versus parallel double plate fixation, Outcome 6 Bony union time (months).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Ulnar nerve transposition group versus in situ decompression (ISD) group, Outcome 1 Complete recovery of ulnar nerve function.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Ulnar nerve transposition group versus in situ decompression (ISD) group, Outcome 2 Bishop rating system of ulnar nerve function grades.