A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intraarticular distal humerus fractures

BackgroundThis study compared clinical outcomes in patients with intraarticular distal humerus fractures treated using 2 different double plating methods.MethodSeventeen patients were treated by perpendicular plating (group I) and 18 by parallel plating (group II) methods. Arc of flexion averaged 106°±23° in group I and 112°±19° in group II.ResultsEleven patients in group I recovered full arc of flexion and 13 patients in group II achieved full arc of flexion. All patients obtained bone union, except 2 patients in group I. Nonunion in these patients developed in the supracondylar area. Complications developed in 6 patients in group I and in 8 in group II. No significant differences were found between the clinical outcomes of the 2o plating methods.ConclusionAlthough more patients failed to achieve bony union in the perpendicular plating group, both parallel and orthogonal plates positioning can provide adequate stability and anatomic reconstruction of the distal humerus fractures.Level of Evidence2.