Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults

Objective To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture‐dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. Methods From January 2016 to January 2019,...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jun‐yang Liu, Ji‐zheng Zhang, Ye‐ming Wang, Xu Tian, Jing‐ming Dong
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-10-01
Series:Orthopaedic Surgery
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12784
id doaj-ba4ee480df86400bb0fe7dcbd984a65d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ba4ee480df86400bb0fe7dcbd984a65d2020-11-25T04:09:10ZengWileyOrthopaedic Surgery1757-78531757-78612020-10-011251448145510.1111/os.12784Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in AdultsJun‐yang Liu0Ji‐zheng Zhang1Ye‐ming Wang2Xu Tian3Jing‐ming Dong4Department of Orthopedic Trauma Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopedic Trauma Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopedic Trauma Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopedic Trauma Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaObjective To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture‐dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. Methods From January 2016 to January 2019, 37 consecutive adult patients who had posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna (no PRUJ dislocation, n = 16) and posterior Monteggia fractures (PRUJ dislocation, n = 21) were included. All patients had intraoperative fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans, and standard radiography (anteroposterior view and lateral view). The mechanism of injury, the cases with open fracture, sustained multiple injuries and classification of fracture was recorded. The clinical details of the patients such as the final range of motion (ROM) and the Broberg–Morrey scores were described. Results Patients with PRUJ dislocation (ten type A, five type B, and six type D) and those without concomitant PRUJ dislocation (fifteen type A and one type C) exhibited an obvious difference according to the classifications of Jupiter et al. (P = 0.010). Ninety‐five percent of patients who had PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture, while only 50% of the patients who did not have PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture (P = 0.002). Meanwhile, 16 of 20 metaphyseal fractures had more than one fragment in the group of dislocations, but five of eight metaphyseal fractures were comminuted in the control group. The two groups exhibited an obvious difference (P = 0.009). The 21 patients who sustained a radioulnar dislocation had less mean arc of flexion, pronation, and Broberg–Morrey scores were significantly less than the patients of the control group (flexion: 117.38 ± 14.46 vs 127.50 ± 13.416, P = 0.035; pronation: 59.76 ± 11.88 vs 67.50 ± 6.58, P = 0.017; Broberg–Morrey: 80.48 ± 12.17 vs 88.19 ± 10.28, P = 0.040). Conclusions Patients suffering posterior Monteggia fractures had more metaphyseal fractures, more comminuted fractures of the metaphysis, and worse ultimate ulnohumeral motion than patients of posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna.https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12784Dislocation of PRUJMetaphysis fracturesPosterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulnaPosterior Monteggia fractures
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jun‐yang Liu
Ji‐zheng Zhang
Ye‐ming Wang
Xu Tian
Jing‐ming Dong
spellingShingle Jun‐yang Liu
Ji‐zheng Zhang
Ye‐ming Wang
Xu Tian
Jing‐ming Dong
Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
Orthopaedic Surgery
Dislocation of PRUJ
Metaphysis fractures
Posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna
Posterior Monteggia fractures
author_facet Jun‐yang Liu
Ji‐zheng Zhang
Ye‐ming Wang
Xu Tian
Jing‐ming Dong
author_sort Jun‐yang Liu
title Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_short Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_full Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_fullStr Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_full_unstemmed Difference Between Posterior Monteggia Fractures and Posterior Fracture‐Dislocation of Proximal Ulna in Adults
title_sort difference between posterior monteggia fractures and posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna in adults
publisher Wiley
series Orthopaedic Surgery
issn 1757-7853
1757-7861
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Objective To figure out the difference between patients with posterior Monteggia fractures which were concomitant with proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation and posterior fracture‐dislocation of the proximal ulna that were not concomitant with PRUJ. Methods From January 2016 to January 2019, 37 consecutive adult patients who had posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna (no PRUJ dislocation, n = 16) and posterior Monteggia fractures (PRUJ dislocation, n = 21) were included. All patients had intraoperative fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans, and standard radiography (anteroposterior view and lateral view). The mechanism of injury, the cases with open fracture, sustained multiple injuries and classification of fracture was recorded. The clinical details of the patients such as the final range of motion (ROM) and the Broberg–Morrey scores were described. Results Patients with PRUJ dislocation (ten type A, five type B, and six type D) and those without concomitant PRUJ dislocation (fifteen type A and one type C) exhibited an obvious difference according to the classifications of Jupiter et al. (P = 0.010). Ninety‐five percent of patients who had PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture, while only 50% of the patients who did not have PRUJ dislocation were accompanied by a metaphyseal fracture (P = 0.002). Meanwhile, 16 of 20 metaphyseal fractures had more than one fragment in the group of dislocations, but five of eight metaphyseal fractures were comminuted in the control group. The two groups exhibited an obvious difference (P = 0.009). The 21 patients who sustained a radioulnar dislocation had less mean arc of flexion, pronation, and Broberg–Morrey scores were significantly less than the patients of the control group (flexion: 117.38 ± 14.46 vs 127.50 ± 13.416, P = 0.035; pronation: 59.76 ± 11.88 vs 67.50 ± 6.58, P = 0.017; Broberg–Morrey: 80.48 ± 12.17 vs 88.19 ± 10.28, P = 0.040). Conclusions Patients suffering posterior Monteggia fractures had more metaphyseal fractures, more comminuted fractures of the metaphysis, and worse ultimate ulnohumeral motion than patients of posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna.
topic Dislocation of PRUJ
Metaphysis fractures
Posterior fracture‐dislocation of proximal ulna
Posterior Monteggia fractures
url https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12784
work_keys_str_mv AT junyangliu differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT jizhengzhang differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT yemingwang differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT xutian differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
AT jingmingdong differencebetweenposteriormonteggiafracturesandposteriorfracturedislocationofproximalulnainadults
_version_ 1724422995262308352