Nonunion and Malunion of Distal Humerus Fractures

Published on 11/04/2015 by admin

Filed under Orthopaedics

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 3834 times

CHAPTER 23 Nonunion and Malunion of Distal Humerus Fractures

INTRODUCTION

Nonunion and malunion are two of the most common and challenging complications of distal humerus fractures. Newer internal fixation principles and techniques have improved our ability to achieve stable fixation of complex distal humerus fractures18 (see Chapter 22, Current Concepts in Fractures of the Distal Humerus). However, some fractures will fail to unite, leaving the patient with an unstable, dysfunctional, and oftentimes painful upper extremity requiring additional surgery. Distal humeral malunion is well characterized in the pediatric population after supracondylar fractures (see Chapters 14 and 15) but has not been analyzed as extensively in the adult population.4,8 This chapter reviews the prevalence, risk factors, pathology and treatment options for distal humeral nonunions and the clinical relevance and treatment options for distal humeral malunion.

DISTAL HUMERAL NONUNION

PATHOLOGY

Distal humeral nonunions share a constellation of pathologic findings that need to be addressed at the time of surgery (Fig. 23-1). The nonunion is usually located at the supracondylar level; most of the time, the distal fragments heal in a more or less anatomic position. Progressive bone reabsorption at the nonunion site may lead to severely compromised bone stock. Previously placed hardware may compromise bone stock even further, especially when screw loosening results in a windshield-wiper effect.

Additionally, severe stiffness develops, and when the patient tries to flex and extend the elbow, most motion occurs through the nonunion site, not through the joint.7 Failure to release the associated elbow contracture at the time of fixation of the nonunion may contribute to failure; otherwise, when elbow motion is rehabilitated excessive loads are transmitted through the nonunion site. Not uncommonly, ulnar nerve excursion is compromised by scarring, especially when there has been previous surgery. Excessive motion at the nonunion site may further compromise the function of the ulnar nerve by stretching. Attention should be paid to the ulnar nerve at the time of surgery.

EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS

INTERNAL FIXATION

Internal fixation is the treatment of choice for the majority of patients presenting with a distal humerus nonunion. The goals of internal fixation are (1) to achieve an adequate reduction and stable internal fixation, (2) stimulate bone healing with bone graft or substitutes, (3) release the associated joint contracture to help achieve a functional range of motion and decrease the stresses on the fixation, and (4) protect the ulnar nerve.

Surgical Technique

Surgical Approach and Ulnar Nerve Decompression

Most patients with previous surgery will have a posterior midline skin scar that may be used for the revision procedure. If the previous fixation was attempted through separate lateral and medial incisions, most of the time, it is better to ignore those and create a new posterior midline skin incision, unless the skin quality is compromised and wound problems are anticipated. Next, the ulnar nerve should be identified; when a previously transposed ulnar nerve is asymptomatic, additional nerve dissection should be avoided as long as the procedure can be performed without further nerve exposure and the ulnar nerve can be protected and reassessed at the end of the procedure. The nerve should be formally isolated and transposed when it was left in situ during previous surgeries.7 Neurolysis should be considered in patients with a previously transposed symptomatic ulnar nerve.

Several deep exposures may be used. A nonunited previous olecranon osteotomy should be used for exposure whenever present. Similarly, when a triceps-reflecting or triceps reflecting anconeus pedicle (TRAP) approach was used for previous surgeries, the same approach should be used if incomplete healing of the extensor mechanism to the olecranon is found at the time of surgery.11 For extra-articular nonunions with an intact extensor mechanism, the so-called bilaterotricipital approach (working on both sides of the triceps without violating the extensor mechanism) provides good exposure while preventing complications such as olecranon nonunion or triceps weakness (Fig. 23-3).2 Olecranon osteotomy provides an excellent exposure and is used by many surgeons for fixation of distal humerus nonunion (Fig. 23-4).15 Alternatively, a triceps-reflecting (Bryan-Morrey or Mayo-modified extensile Kücher) or TRAP approach is selected when the decision to proceed with fixation versus arthroplasty will be taken intraoperatively.3 Once the deep exposure is complete, tissue should be sent routinely for pathology and microbiology.

Fixation Technique and Bone Grafting

The fixation technique that we recommend for internal fixation of distal humerus nonunions follows the same principles, objectives, and steps described for fixation of acute distal humerus fractures in the previous chapter (see Chapter 22).18 However, bone reabsorption at the nonunion site usually makes it difficult to apply compression at the supracondylar level if the reduction is anatomic, and the concept of metaphyseal shortening (see Chapter 22) often needs to be applied.12

Correct orientation of the distal fragment relative to the diaphysis may be difficult, especially in cases with more extensive bone loss. Care should be taken to avoid excessive flexion, extension, valgus, varus, or malrotation when the distal portion is aligned with the diaphysis. After reduction and provisional fixation of the nonunion with Kirschner wires, the quality of the reduction may be assessed under fluoroscopy, if necessary. Correct rotational alignment will place the forearm in roughly symmetrical positions with shoulder internal and external rotation. Excessive flexion or extension will shift the elbow arc into more flexion or more extension respectively. If shortening at the nonunion level is needed to achieve adequate bone contact and compression, the distal segment should be translated anteriorly to provide room for the coronoid and radial head in flexion; extension will be limited until a new olecranon fossa is recreated by excavating bone at the posterior aspect of the diaphysis. Once the reduction is considered satisfactory, the need for structural bone graft should be assessed and dealt with accordingly. Tricortical iliac crest bone graft may be needed to reconstruct large areas of bone loss.

Two parallel plates are then applied medially and laterally, and fixed with multiple distal long screws, which most of the time will interdigitate and interlock, increasing the stability of the construct (Fig. 23-6). Compression at the nonunion site is achieved by a combination of maneuvers including the use of a large reduction clamp, proximal screw insertion in the compression mode, and slight undercontouring of the plates. Cancellous bone autograft or a bone graft substitute is then placed at the nonunion site to promote bone healing. Our preference is to fashion two thin corticocancellous plates from the iliac crest and fix them with one or more screws across the nonunion site on the medial and lateral columns (Figs. 23-6 and 23-7).

Outcome

There are several studies on the results of internal fixation for distal humerus nonunions. Some articles have included a wide spectrum,5 from delayed unions and nonunions affecting one column to infected nonunions with bone loss and associated deep infection. Other authors have studied more specific group of patients, such as flail or osteochondral nonunions.16,17 It is important to understand the information summarized below as it pertains to the particular case presenting for treatment.

Early treatment attempts for distal humerus nonunions were somewhat discouraging. Mitsunaga et al10 reported on 25 patients treated with internal fixation; close to 30% of the patients required additional surgery for revision fixation or bone grafting. Ackerman and Jupiter1 published a higher union rate of 94% in a series of 20 patients, but the functional results were fair or poor in 65% of the cases, and only one patient was considered to have an excellent result. The authors noted that most patients continue to have a major long-term disability despite achieving successful union.

The results of internal fixation for distal humerus nonunions were improved with the introduction of better fixation constructs and attention to capsular release and the ulnar nerve.7 The more recent literature on the outcome of internal fixation for distal humerus nonunions shows improved overall results,5 but there are some specific subsets of patients in which internal fixation continues to provide suboptimal outcomes.16,17

Helfet et al5 recently published their experience with internal fixation in 52 patients presenting with a delayed union (13 patients) or a nonunion (39 patients) of the distal humerus. Most (39 patients) but not all patients had undergone previous failed surgery. There was a wide range of patterns of nonunion included in this study. Only 13 nonunions were intercondylar; the remaining were supracondylar in 27 patients, transcondylar in 6 patients, and lateral or medial condylar in 6 patients. Union was achieved in all but one patient, and the average final arc of motion was 94 degrees. However, additional surgery was performed in approximately 30% of the patients, mostly to improve motion, address the ulnar nerve, or remove prominent hardware.

Ring et al16,17 have analyzed the outcome in two specific subsets of distal humerus nonunions. In their first study, these authors reported on the outcome of so-called unstable nonunions, defined as those in which the hand and the forelimb cannot be supported against gravity. Union was achieved in 12 of the 15 patients included in their study, but additional surgery was performed in six of the 12 elbows with healing, again to improve motion, address the ulnar nerve, or remove hardware. Osteochondral nonunions were addressed in a separate paper including only three patients who all achieved union and improved motion without evidence of osteonecrosis.16,17

The Mayo Clinic experience with internal fixation and bone grafting for distal humerus nonunion using the parallel-plating technique described in this chapter has been reviewed recently in a subset of patients with low nonunions requiring shortening. Twelve patients with a low distal humerus nonunion and severe bone loss were treated with internal fixation using a parallel-plating technique, shortening of the humerus at the nonunion site, capsular release, and bone grafting. Union was achieved primarily in all cases, but two elbows developed collapse of the articular surface after union and were revised to a total elbow arthroplasty. At an average follow-up of 2.5 years, eight of the remaining patients had no pain, mean flexion was 113 degrees, and mean extension 22 degrees. Complications included deep infection in one case and heterotopic ossification requiring surgical removal in one case. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 80 points (range, 30 to 100 points); all patients had an excellent result with no complications.

Infected Nonunions

The treatment of infected nonunions is challenging and should be approached individually. A staged approach is probably best for most patients with previous surgery and retained hardware or draining wounds. The first procedure should remove all foreign material and infected tissues including bone. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement beads provide a high local dose of antibiotics. In patients with severe bone loss and poor condition of the soft tissues, temporary external fixation provides adequate stability and allows better wound care. The author has no experience with external fixation as a definitive treatment modality for infected distal humerus nonunion, but its use has been reported by others. When external fixation is not used, the elbow should be kept immobilized in a cast or brace until the second procedure, and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics usually are recommended based on the results of the cultures and sensitivity studies. Repeat aspiration to identify residual infection is performed between 2 and 4 weeks after the antibiotic therapy is discontinued.

The bone stock remaining after the débridement will largely dictate the second procedure. If bone stock is severely compromised, consideration should be given to elbow arthroplasty instead of internal fixation. The relative risk of recurrent infection after fixation or arthroplasty is unknown, but most surgeons would recommend a longer period of time between surgeries if arthro-plasty is selected, owing to concerns of periprosthetic deep infection and the more predictable restoration of motion if the joint is replaced after a long period of immobilization.

DISTAL HUMERAL MALUNION IN THE ADULT PATIENT

The clinical features and treatment options for distal humerus malunions have been studied and reported mostly in the pediatric population, as detailed in Chapters 15 and 16. Malunion also occurs in the adult population, but there is limited information on the evaluation and treatment of distal humerus malunion in adults.4,8

EVALUATION

Most patients with malunion after a distal humerus fracture present with a combination of pain and stiffness. In the absence of associated degenerative changes or other pathology, stiffness is usually much more prominent than pain. However, pain and stiffness may be present in patients with a previous distal humerus fracture complicated by capsular contracture, heterotopic ossification, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, infection, or avascular necrosis. The evaluation of patients with a distal humerus malunion should help determine to what extent correction of the malunion is needed in order to improve pain and function.

Plain radiographs are useful mostly to assess the status of the articular cartilage and identify associated pathology (Fig. 23-8). In addition, marked deformity is easily identified in plain radiographs, but computed tomography with three-dimensional reconstruction represents the ideal imaging modality to understand the deformity and determine if there is an associated nonunion of part of the articular surface, because some patients will present with a combination of nonunion on one side of the joint and malunion on the other side of the joint.8 The malunion may be mostly extra-articular, mostly intra-articular, or a combination of the two. The evaluation should be completed with studies to identify infection in patients with previous surgery, risk factors or suspicious findings on the history and physical exam.

TREATMENT

Patients with symptomatic distal humerus malunion may be offered several alternatives (Box 23-1). Osteotomy for correction of extra-articular and intra-articular deformities is appealing because it provides the potential to preserve the native joint and improve pain and motion. However, some patients may present with severe joint destruction not amenable to osteotomy. Arthroplasty may represent a good alternative for older patients willing to limit their upper extremity use and prevent mechanical failure. When moderate extraarticular deformity limits motion secondary to impingement of the proximal ulna and radius with the deformed distal humerus, recontouring of the distal humerus by selective removal of bone provides a reasonable alternative with relatively low morbidity. Joint fusion may be considered for patients with severe pain who are not candidates for other surgical alternatives, but most patients with limited motion secondary to a distal humerus malunion are reluctant to have their elbow fused.

Osteotomy

Patients with an extra-articular malunion of the distal humerus may benefit from extra-articular osteotomy. Correction of the malunion may improve range of motion and cosmesis. In addition, varus malunion may be associated with progressive ulnar neuropathy as well as gradual attrition of the lateral collateral ligament complex and tardy posterolateral rotatory instability.13 Closing-wedge osteotomies are usually preferred because humeral shortening is relatively well tolerated. Medial or lateral translation of the distal fragment should be considered to avoid a serpentine aspect of the distal humerus. Usually, extra-articular osteotomies are performed through a bilaterotricipital approach and fixed with medial and lateral plates (Fig. 23-9). Capsular release and ulnar nerve transposition may be associated as needed.

Intra-articular osteotomies may be indicated when intra-articular malunion is thought to be responsible for pain or limited motion and joint salvage is not compromised by the severity of joint destruction, avascular necrosis or secondary degenerative changes. Intra-articular osteotomies usually require a more ample approach, such as olecranon osteotomy or reflection of the extensor mechanism. Care should be taken to protect the articular cartilage and bone graft is usually required to fill the defects created by correction of the deformity. Whenever an intra-articular osteotomy is performed, an alternative salvage procedure, such as interposition arthroplasty or joint replacement should be available because the degree of joint destruction is difficult to fully appreciate before surgery.

OUTCOME

There is very limited information about the outcome of surgical correction of distal humerus malunion. Cobb et al4 reported on three patients treated with an intra-articular derotational opening-wedge osteotomy for a distal humerus malunion. Motion was improved in all three patients, but one required conversion to interposition arthroplasty.

More recently, McKee et al.8 reported on a heterogeneous group of 13 patients with intra-articular distal humerus malunion or nonunion following fracture. Six fractures had healed in a malunited position, two elbows presented a combination of lateral malunion and medial nonunion, and the remaining five presented a nonunion. An intra-articular osteotomy was performed in the eight patients with malunion; results were rated as satisfactory in seven patients.

The results of arthroplasty in patients with distal humerus malunion are difficult to dissect out of the studies analyzing arthroplasty for the sequelae of trauma (see section on arthroplasty). As noted, the main concern is the increased rate of polyethylene wear found in patients with preoperative angular deformity.

References

1 Ackerman G., Jupiter J.B. Non-union of fractures of the distal end of the humerus. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1988;70:75.

2 Alonso-Llames M. Bilaterotricipital approach to the elbow. Its application in the osteosynthesis of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1972;43:479.

3 Bryan R.S., Morrey B.F. Extensive posterior exposure of the elbow. A triceps-sparing approach. Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 1982;166:188.

4 Cobb T.K., Linscheid R.L. Late correction of malunited intercondylar humeral fractures. Intra-articular osteotomy and tricortical bone grafting. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1994;76:622.

5 Helfet D.L., Kloen P., Anand N., Rosen H.S. Open reduction and internal fixation of delayed unions and nonunions of fractures of the distal part of the humerus. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2003;85-A:33.

6 Henley M.B. Intra-articular distal humeral fractures in adults. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 1987;18:11.

7 Jupiter J.B., Goodman L.J. The management of complex distal humerus nonunion in the elderly by elbow capsulectomy, triple plating, and ulnar nerve neurolysis. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992;1:37.

8 McKee M., Jupiter J., Toh C.L., Wilson L., Colton C., Karras K.K. Reconstruction after malunion and nonunion of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus. Methods and results in 13 adults. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1994;76:614.

9 McKee M.D., Wilson T.L., Winston L., Schemitsch E.H., Richards R.R. Functional outcome following surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humeral fractures through a posterior approach. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2000;82-A:1701.

10 Mitsunaga M.M., Bryan R.S., Linscheid R.L. Condylar nonunions of the elbow. J. Trauma. 1982;22:787.

11 O’Driscoll S.W. The triceps-reflecting anconeus pedicle (TRAP) approach for distal humeral fractures and nonunions. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2000;31:91.

12 O’Driscoll S.W., Sanchez-Sotelo J., Torchia M.E. Management of the smashed distal humerus. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2002;33:19. vii

13 O’Driscoll S.W., Spinner R.J., McKee M.D., Kibler W.B., Hastings H.2nd, Morrey B.F., Kato H., Takayama S., Imatani J., Toh S., Graham H.K. Tardy posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow due to cubitus varus. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.. 2001;83-A:1358.

14 Pajarinen J., Bjorkenheim J.M. Operative treatment of type C intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus: results after a mean follow-up of 2 years in a series of 18 patients. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:48.

15 Ring D., Gulotta L., Chin K., Jupiter J.B. Olecranon osteotomy for exposure of fractures and nonunions of the distal humerus. J. Orthop. Trauma. 2004;18:446.

16 Ring D., Gulotta L., Jupiter J.B. Unstable nonunions of the distal part of the humerus. J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1040.

17 Ring D., Jupiter J.B. Operative treatment of osteochondral nonunion of the distal humerus. J. Orthop. Trauma. 2006;20:56.

18 Sanchez-Sotelo J., Torchia M.E., O’Driscoll S.W. Complex distal humeral fractures: internal fixation with a principle-based parallel-plate technique. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2007;89:961.

19 Sanders R.A., Raney E.M., Pipkin S. Operative treatment of bicondylar intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus. Orthopedics. 1992;15:159.

20 Soon J.L., Chan B.K., Low C.O. Surgical fixation of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus in adults. Injury. 2004;35:44.