4.4 Article

The pulseless supracondylar humeral fracture: Our experience and a 1-year follow-up

Journal

JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND ACUTE CARE SURGERY
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 711-716

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002007

Keywords

Supracondylar humerus fracture; pink/pale pulseless hand; vascular injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Although the pulseless supracondylar humeral fracture (SHF) in children is well known in the bibliography, controversy still exists regarding the treatment strategy. The purpose of this study was: (a) to describe our policy with pulseless hands following SHF and (b) evaluate the functional outcome in a 1-year follow-up. METHODS: During the years 2013 to 2018 in our department, 23 of 210 children with type III SHF presented with a pulseless hand (20 with a PPH and 3 with a cold, pulseless hand). Fracture reduction was attempted in all patients followed by reevaluation of the vascular clinical status (including a Doppler ultrasound). RESULTS: In PPH, a palpable radial pulse was present in all patients in less than 48 hours after surgery. Closed reduction was able to improve the vascular status in 1 patient with pale pulseless hand but surgical exploration of the brachial artery was performed in the other two patients. A palpable radial pulse was present 24 hours after surgery in these 3 patients. All patients had good/excellent outcomes at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: With our study, we want to enhance the traditional dogma of watchful waiting in pink pulseless hands following SHF, and we believe that it should not be revisited. In pale pulseless hands following SHF, at least one attempt of reduction and fixation of the fracture is recommended. If the pulse does not return or the vascular status does not improve, immediate surgical exploration of the artery is strongly indicated. Copyright (c) 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available