Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Apr 3;13(1):68.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0768-3.

Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis

Yuyan Na et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: The standard treatment for severe displaced pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture (SCHF) is closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. However, controversy persists concerning the optimal pin fixation technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy on the configuration of lateral entry only with crossed entry pin fixation for SCHF, including Gartland type II and type III fractures in children.

Methods: Published literatures, including retrospective studies, prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials, presenting the probability of poor functional consequence of elbow and/or loss of reduction and/or iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury and/or superficial infection and/or cubitus varus were included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results: Twenty-four studies were included in the present meta-analysis involving 1163 patients with lateral entry pins and 1059 patients with crossed entry pins. An excellent score of Flynn criteria occurred more commonly in patients who treated with crossed pins than in patients with lateral pins only (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99; P = 0.03). In accordance with previous systematic review, the incidence of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury in crossed entry group was significantly more than in lateral entry group with statistical difference (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.14-0.47; P < 0.0001). And, results of subgroup analysis on iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury based on experimental design of retrospective study (RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.10-0.52; P < 0.0004) and randomized control trial (RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.10-0.79; P < 0.02) were similar.

Conclusions: In consideration of the contradictoriness of lateral entry with two pins only (possible risk of poor functional consequence of elbow) and crossed entry pins (risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury), the recommended strategy for the treatment of SCHF is the lateral entry technique with introducing divergent three pins which can provide a stable configuration and avoid the injury of the ulnar nerve. And additional protective measures for the ulnar nerve should be taken by surgeons that wish for the more stable structure with the crossed entry technique.

Keywords: Pediatric; Pin fixation; Supracondylar humeral fracture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. This meta-analysis does not involve research on humans.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of elbow functional outcomes between the lateral entry group and the crossed entry group
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of loss of reduction through imaging between the lateral entry group and the crossed entry group
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury between the lateral entry group and the crossed entry group
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel plot for iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury to detect publication bias
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Comparison of superficial infection between the lateral entry group and the crossed entry group
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Comparison of cubitus varus between the lateral entry group and the crossed entry group

References

    1. Zorrilla SNJ, Prada-Canizares A, Marti-Ciruelos R, Pretell-Mazzini J. Supracondylar humeral fractures in children: current concepts for management and prognosis. Int Orthop. 2015;39:2287–2296. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2975-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gartland JJ. Management of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1959;109:145–154. - PubMed
    1. Cheng JC, Lam TP, Maffulli N. Epidemiological features of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in Chinese children. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001;10:63–67. - PubMed
    1. Millis MB, Singer IJ, Hall JE. Supracondylar fracture of the humerus in children. Further experience with a study in orthopaedic decision-making. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;188:90–7. - PubMed
    1. Zhao JG, Wang J, Zhang P. Is lateral pin fixation for displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus better than crossed pins in children? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2942–2953. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3025-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms