[go: up one dir, main page]

100% found this document useful (1 vote)
103 views49 pages

Principles of Management Pediatric Fractures

Fractures are common in children, accounting for 15% of injuries. Children's bones differ from adults with more cartilage, growth plates, and remodeling potential. Management principles include casting, K-wires, elastic nails for diaphyseal fractures or plating for multiple trauma. Precautions are needed for physeal injuries, non-accidental trauma, and rare malignancies that can mimic fractures.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
103 views49 pages

Principles of Management Pediatric Fractures

Fractures are common in children, accounting for 15% of injuries. Children's bones differ from adults with more cartilage, growth plates, and remodeling potential. Management principles include casting, K-wires, elastic nails for diaphyseal fractures or plating for multiple trauma. Precautions are needed for physeal injuries, non-accidental trauma, and rare malignancies that can mimic fractures.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 49

Principles of management

Pediatric Fractures
Objectives

• Statistics about fractures in children


• How children’s bones are different
• Outline principles of management
• Point out specific precautions

Acknowledgement and recommendation


Lynn T Staheli
introduction

• In Middle East ~60% of population are < 20 yrs.

• Fractures account for ~15% of all injuries in children.


• Different from adult fractures
• Vary in various age groups
( Infants, children, adolescents )
Statistics

• ~ 50% of boys and 25% of girls, expected to have a


fracture during childhood.

• Boys > girls


• Rate increases with age.

Mizulta, 1987
Statistics

• ~ 50% of boys and 25% of girls, expected to have a


fracture during childhood.

• Boys > girls


• Rate increases with age.

• Physeal injuries with age.

Mizulta, 1987
Statistics

Most frequent sites


(sample of 923 children, Mizulta, 1987)
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Growth plate.
• Bone.
• Cartilage.
• Periosteum.
• Ligaments.
• Age-related
• physiology
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Growth plate:

– In infants, GP is stronger than bone


increased diaphyseal fractures
– Provides perfect remodeling power.
– Injury of growth plate causes deformity.
– A fracture might lead to overgrowth.
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Bone:

– Increased collagen: bone ratio


- lowers modulus of elasticity
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Bone:

– Increased collagen: bone ratio


- lowers modulus of elasticity
– Increased cancellous bone
- reduces tensile strength
- reduces tendency of fracture to propagate
less comminuted fractures
– Bone fails on both tension and compression
- commonly seen “buckle” fracture
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Cartilage:

– Increased ratio of cartilage to bone


- better resilience
- difficult x-ray evaluation
- size of articular fragment often under-estimated
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Periosteum:

– Metabolically active
• more callus, rapid union, increased remodeling
– Thickness and strength
• Intact periosteal hinge affects fracture pattern
• May aid reduction
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Age related fracture pattern:

– Infants: diaphyseal fractures


– Children: metaphyseal fractures
– Adolescents: epiphyseal injuries
Why are children’s fractures different?

Children have different physiology and anatomy

• Physiology

– Better blood supply


rare incidence of delayed and non-union
Physeal injuries

• Account for ~25% of all children’s fractures.


• More in boys.
• More in upper limb.
• Most heal well rapidly with good remodeling.
• Growth may be affected.
Physeal injuries
Classification: Salter-Harris, Peterson, Ogden
Physeal injuries

• Less than 1% cause physeal bridging affecting


growth.
– Small bridges (<10%) may lyse spontaneously.
– Central bridges more likely to lyse.
– Peripheral bridges more likely to cause deformity

– Avoid injury to physis during fixation.


– Monitor growth over a long period.
– Image suspected physeal bar (CT, MRI)
The power of remodeling

• Tremendous power of remodeling


• Can accept more angulation and displacement
• Rotational mal-alignment ?does not remodel
The power of remodeling

Factors affecting remodeling potential

• Years of remaining growth – most important factor


• Position in the bone – the nearer to physis the better
• Plane of motion –
greatest in sagittal, the frontal, and least for transverse plane
• Physeal status – if damaged, less potential for correction
• Growth potential of adjacent physis
e.g. upper humerus better than lower humerus
The power of remodeling

Factors affecting remodeling potential

• Growth potential of adjacent physis


e.g. upper humerus better than lower humerus
Indications for operative fixation

• Open fractures
• Displaced intra articular fractures
( Salter-Harris III-IV )
• fractures with vascular injury
• ? Compartment syndrome
• Fractures not reduced by closed reduction
( soft tissue interposition, button-holing of periosteum )
• If reduction could be only maintained in an abnormal
position
Indications for operative fixation
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• K- wires could be replaced by absorbable rods
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• K- wires could be replaced by absorbable rods

Preoperative immediate 6 months 12 months

Hope et al , JBJS 73B(6) ,1991


Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
• Screws
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
• Screws
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
• Screws
• Plates – multiple trauma
Methods of fixation

• Casting - still the commonest


• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
• Screws
• Plates – multiple trauma
• IMN - adolescents only (injury to growth)
Methods of fixation
• Casting - still the commonest
• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
• Screws
• Plates – multiple trauma
• IMN - adolescents
• Ex-fix – usually in open fractures
Methods of fixation
• Casting - still the commonest
• K-wires
– most commonly used
– Metaphyseal fractures
• Intramedullary wires, elastic nails
– Very useful
– Diaphyseal fractures
• Screws
• Plates – multiple trauma
• IMN - adolescents i o n
a t
• Ex-fix bi n
o m
C
Fixation and stability

• Fixation methods provide


varying degrees of
stability.

• Ideal fixation should


provide adequate stability
and allow normal flexibility.

• Often combination methods


are best.
Complications

• Ma-lunion is not usually a problem


( except cubitus varus )
• Non-union is hardly seen
( except in the lateral condyle )
• Growth disturbance – epiphyseal damage
• Vascular – volkmann’s ischemia
• Infection - rare
Beware!

Non-accidental injuries
Beware!

Non-accidental injuries
• ?Multiple
• At various levels of healing
• Unclear history – mismatching with injury
• Circumstantial evidence
Beware!

Non-accidental injuries
• Circumstantial evidence
• Soft tissue injuries - bruising, burns
• Intraabdominal injuries
• Intracranial injuries
• Delay in seeking treatment
Beware!

Non-accidental injuries
• Specific pattern
– Posterior ribs
– Skull
Beware!
Non-accidental injuries
• Specific pattern
– Corner fractures (traction & rotation)
Beware!
Non-accidental injuries
• Specific pattern
– Bucket handle fractures (traction & rotation)
Beware!

Non-accidental injuries
• Specific pattern
– Femur shaft fracture
• <1 year of age ( 60-70% non accidental)
• Transverse fracture
– Humeral shaft fracture <3 years of age
– Sternal fractures
Beware!

Malignant tumours

• Can present as injury.


• History of trauma usual.
•12 y old girl
• History of trauma
• mild tenderness
• Periosteal reaction

• 2m later, still tender

• Ewings sarcoma
Special considerations

During resuscitation
summary
Children’s bones are different
summary

• About 60% of population in ME are children!


• Fractures in children are common.
• Children’s bones are different
• Outline principles of management.
• Specific treatment plans (combinations possible)
• Specific precautions.
• Beware
– Non-accidental trauma
– Malignant tumors

You might also like