Next Article in Journal
AGREEing on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment
Next Article in Special Issue
Advances in Pediatric Fracture Diagnosis and Treatment Are Numerous but Great Challenges Remain
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Differing Language Background Exposures on Bayley-III Language Assessment in a National Cohort of Children Born Less than 29 Weeks’ Gestation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Apophyseal Avulsion of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Origin in Adolescent Soccer Players
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/children9071049
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review Regarding the Influence of Fracture Treatment on Elbow Function

by
Lisette C. Langenberg
1,2,3,
Kimberly I. M. van den Ende
3,
Max Reijman
3,
G. J. (Juliën) Boersen
3 and
Joost W. Colaris
3,*
1
Centre for Orthopedic Research Alkmaar (CORAL), 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands
3
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(7), 1049; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071049
Submission received: 14 May 2022 / Revised: 2 July 2022 / Accepted: 4 July 2022 / Published: 14 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pediatric Fractures)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This review aims to identify what angulation may be accepted for the conservative treatment of pediatric radial neck fractures and how the range of motion (ROM) at follow-up is influenced by the type of fracture treatment. Patients and Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic search was performed for studies that reported on fracture angulation, treatment details, and ROM on a minimum of five children with radial neck fractures that were followed for at least one year. Data on fracture classification, treatment, and ROM were analyzed. Results: In total, 52 studies (2420 children) were included. Sufficient patient data could be extracted from 26 publications (551 children), of which 352 children had at least one year of follow-up. ROM following the closed reduction (CR) of fractures with <30 degrees angulation was impaired in only one case. In fractures angulated over 60 degrees, K-wire fixation (Kw) resulted in a significantly better ROM than intramedullary fixation (CIMP; Kw 9.7% impaired vs. CIMP 32.6% impaired, p = 0.01). In more than 50% of cases that required open reduction (OR), a loss of motion occurred. Conclusions: CR is effective in fractures angulated up to 30 degrees. There may be an advantage of Kw compared to CIMP fixation in fractures angulated over 60 degrees. OR should only be attempted if CR and CRIF have failed.

1. Introduction

Although radial neck fractures in children occur frequently, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment. The indication to perform a (surgical) reduction varies widely; some authors advise striving for anatomical reduction of the radial neck, and others accept up to 60° of fracture angulation [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].
Several treatment options are available. Closed reduction (CR) without fixation, closed reduction with intramedullary pinning (CIMP) with or without pin rotation, K-wire leverage and K-wire pinning (Kw), and open reduction or combinations of the aforementioned options may be used. There is no consensus yet on the fracture angulation threshold for surgical intervention and which surgical technique should be used.
Loss of motion is reported to be the most important cause of a poor outcome [8]. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare the elbow function following different types of treatment in relation to the angulation of the pediatric radial neck fracture. With this research, we aimed to find out which treatment modality for different types of pediatric radial neck fractures results in the best elbow function.

2. Materials and Methods

This study followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The protocol for this systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (accessed on 7 May 2022), (registration number CRD42018088696).

2.1. Search Strategy

A health science librarian of our institution, with extensive experience in the conduct of literature searching for systematic reviews, assisted in designing and performing the search [9]. The following databases were searched: Embase, Cochrane Central Register, Medline, Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, and Google Scholar. The following main keywords were used: radial neck fracture, angulation, elbow, outcome, pronation, and supination. The search strategy for each database is outlined in Appendix A of this paper. The databases were searched from inception to 17 November 2021 (Figure 1).

2.2. Study Selection

The results from all databases were combined, and duplicate titles were removed. Two authors (K.I.M.v.d.E. and G.J.B.) screened all titles, abstracts, and full articles independently. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1. Disagreements were solved by discussion, and a final decision was made by a third reviewer (J.W.C.) if there was disagreement. Patients with less than one year of follow-up were excluded.

2.3. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias was assessed by using the prognostic checklist adapted from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews, chapter 7 [10] (see Table 2). Each study was scored for selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Two authors (K.I.M.v.d.E. and G.J.B.) assessed the quality of the included studies independently. If consensus was not reached after discussion, a third reviewer (M.R.) was consulted. Finally, article quality was screened using the MINORS criteria; an overview is listed in Table 3.
Data regarding study design, number of children, age, fracture classification, type of surgical intervention or conservative therapy, range of motion (ROM) at presentation, ROM at follow-up, and complications were extracted by one reviewer (K.I.M.v.d.E.). Characteristics are listed in Table 3. The primary outcome was ROM of the elbow at follow-up.

2.4. Data Analysis

Each study was analyzed for individual patient data on preoperative angulation, method of treatment, and postoperative range of motion. Data regarding radial neck angulation (≤30°, 31–60°, and >60°) and treatment were extracted from articles or obtained from authors. If published articles provided insufficient patient data to be included for the data analysis, the authors were contacted with a request for individual data if contact details were available.
For each received treatment, the ROM at follow-up was evaluated (Table 4). Four different treatment groups were identified: no reduction or closed reduction only (CR); closed reduction followed by internal fixation (CRIF), either with K-wire fixation (Kw) or closed intramedullary pin fixation (CIMP); or open reduction (OR). If there was no full range of motion at follow-up (defined as at least 5 degrees of impairment in any direction described by the authors), the outcome was scored “impaired”. Differences in outcomes for several groups were statistically analyzed using the Chi-Square Fisher Exact test (p < 0.05) using the software SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0 (IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Of the 2281 publications found by our search, 52 series of pediatric radial neck fractures were of potential interest. Other than Ҫevik et al. [14], Cha et al. [15], and Cossio et al. [16], all studies showed some risk of bias. Selection bias was seen in 10 papers, information bias in 15 papers, and confounding in 18 papers (see Table 2 and Table 3).
Twenty-six case series provided sufficient data regarding angulation at trauma, treatment details, and elbow ROM at follow-up [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. The main characteristics of the included studies are listed in Table 3. All studies had a retrospective design. In total, 551 pediatric cases could be included, ranging from 5 to 54 children per study [8,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,33,35]. All fractures were divided into three groups based on the degrees of fracture angulation following the classifications of O’Brien and Judet [5,7]: ≤30° (35 cases), 31–60° (247 cases), and >60° (269 cases). In total, 352 of these patients had a follow-up of at least one year. Results are depicted in Table 4, which includes data from nineteen articles [8,11,13,14,15,16,21,23,25,30,31,32].
Table
Table 4. Data analysis of 352 pediatric patients who sustained a radial neck fracture and had at least 1 year follow-up.
Table 4. Data analysis of 352 pediatric patients who sustained a radial neck fracture and had at least 1 year follow-up.
Fracture AngleN (%)Treatment GroupsN with Loss of Motion (% of Treatment)N (% of Angulation Group)
≤30°25 (7.1)CR1 (7.7)13 (52.0)
CRIF
CIMP
Kw		0
0
0 		11 (44.0)
11 (44.0)
0
OR1 (100)1 (4.0)
Group sum2 (8.0)
31–60°152 (43.2)CR7 (63.6)11 (7.2)
CRIF
CIMP
Kw		12 (9.4)
10 (9.5) NS$
2 (9.1) NS$		127 (83.6)
105 (69.1)
22 (14.5)
OR7 (50)14 (9.2)
Group sum26 (17.1)
>60°175 (49.7)CR00
CRIF
CIMP
Kw		33 (26.4)
30 (32.6) *@
3 (9.7) *@		123 (70.3)
92 (52.6)
31 (17.7)
OR31 (59.6)52 (29.7)
Group sum64 (36.6)
>30°
(31–60° and >60° combined)		327 (92.9)CR7 (63.6) *^11 (3.4)
CRIF
CIMP
Kw		45 (18.0) *^
40 (20.3) NS#
5 (9.4) NS#		250 (76.5)
197 (60.2)
53 (16.2)
OR38 (55.1)66 (20.2)
Group sum90 (27.5)
CR = closed reduction without fixation or immobilization only; CRIF = closed reduction internal fixation; OR = open reduction; CIMP = retrograde intramedullar fixation; Kw = percutaneous fixation with K-wire. N = number of patients; *: significant difference; NS: non-significant difference. $: In the group angulated 31–60, there is no significant difference between Kw and CIMP, p = 0.950. ^: In the >30 angulated patients, there is a significant difference between CR (without fixation) and CRIF (CIMP and Kw) fixation; p < 0.001. #: In the >30 angulated patients, there is no significant difference between IM fixation or Kw fixation, p = 0.007. @: In the >60 angulated patients, there is a significant difference between Kw and CIMP; p = 0.001.
Treatment options consisted of cast immobilization without reduction; closed reduction [26,27], which may be aided by leverage of a percutaneous pin [61]; K-wire fixation (either transcapitellar [18,62], across the fracture [41], by percutaneous K-wire leverage and pinning [15,16,19,29,33,46,49,52]); intramedullary K-wire [24,32]; Nancy nail or Titanium elastic nail (TEN) [11,13,22,23,25,28,34,36,54,55] combined techniques such as CIMP assisted by Kw leverage [14,17,30,43,50,53,57]; open reduction only [8]; or the description of several treatments [20,21,31,35,37,38,39,42,45,47,56,59,60]. Some included (slight) adjustments to established techniques [12,58].
Children with a fracture angulation of ≤30° who were treated with CR showed loss of motion in 7.7% at follow-up. In fractures angulated over 30 degrees, 63.6% of conservatively treated children had impaired ROM (7/11 cases). The outcome following CR was significantly worse compared to patients treated with CRIF (either Kw fixation or CIMP), in angulation >30 degrees (CR 7/11 (63.6%) impaired vs. CRIF 45/250 (18.0%) p-value < 0.001).
A closed reduction with intramedullary pinning was most frequently performed (250 patients in total) in both the 31–60° and >60° group. If only the groups over 30 degrees angulation are compared, there was a significantly better outcome following K-wire fixation than following CIMP (Kw vs. CIMP 5/53 (9%) vs. 40/197 (20%); p-value <0.001). This is also true for a separate analysis of the >60° group (K-wire vs. CIMP 3/31 (9.7%) vs. 30/92 (32.6%) impaired, p-value of 0.001), but a separate analysis of Kw vs. CIMP in the 31–60 group yields a non-significant difference (Table 4). Overall, there was no significant difference between Kw and CIMP.
Open reduction resulted in an impaired range of motion in about 60% of cases. All but one OR had been performed in fractures angulated over 30°. Nine separate articles published data on open reductions (OR), but the numbers were too small for a statistical analysis. Following OR, there had been 7 fractures without fixation, 11 with IM fixation, and 18 with K-wire fixation; 3 were not described in detail.

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that performed a pooled analysis that focused on range of motion as an outcome following pediatric radial neck fracture treatment. Overall pediatric radial neck fractures resulted in impaired elbow function in 26% of cases. Radial neck fractures with an angulation of ≤30° demonstrated good results with CR. Fractures angulated >60° showed the least ROM impairment if K-wires were used. Open reduction had been mostly used in severely angulated fractures and often ended in an impaired elbow function.
In the literature, there is a wide variety of different scales and ratings to report radial neck fracture outcomes [63]. Only a few authors used a validated outcome scale, such as the Mayo Elbow Performance Scale (MEPS) or the (quick)DASH (Table 3). Many used their own rating system to judge the clinical or radiological outcome, which led to low comparability. Thereby, most authors only published the mean outcomes of certain groups of patients or mixed outcomes of several fracture classifications. Data pooling of individual patient cases and a meta-analysis for various treatments and their outcomes were hence impossible; the only analysis that could be performed on the extracted data was an evaluation of the outcome of range of motion based on fracture classification.

4.1. CR and Indication for Fracture Reduction

All children who were treated with immobilization or closed reduction only received a long arm cast (or collar and cuff sling under the clothes [21]). In the studies of Fowles and Kassab [18] and Jones and Esah [21], the elbows were immobilized for 3 weeks. For all other conservative treatments, the duration of immobilization was unclear [20,26,31].
Overall, no manipulation was performed when the initial angle was ≤30°, and closed reduction was indicated when the initial angle was >30°. An exception is an article by Jones [21] that advised fracture reduction when angulation exceeded 15 degrees. Closed reduction was always unsuccessful in radial neck fractures angulated over 60°, following a study that evaluated the success rate of closed radial neck fracture reduction in the emergency ward [64]. The same article stated that delayed reduction that was attempted over 24 h following trauma, may be prone to failure.
Closed reduction of a radial neck fracture may be challenging and might result in residual angulation or re-displacement. In a series of 48 fractures that were reduced by closed manipulation without fixation, as many as 36 fractures remained slightly or severely unreduced [45]. The quality of the cast may play a role, which may be calculated using the casting index (CI) [65,66].
Closed reduction without osteosynthesis in fractures angulated >30 degrees showed loss of motion at follow-up in over 60% of cases (N = 11). A recent review therefore advised to consider the percutaneous fixation of a successful closed reduction [63]. Malunion was the main reason for loss of motion in this group [42,43,51]. Some stated that closed manipulation may be attempted in fractures angulated as much as 45 degrees, but if residual angulation exceeds 20 degrees, intramedullary pin fixation should be considered [25]. Others concluded that closed reduction should be considered unsuccessful if residual angulation is over 15 degrees [21].
Closed reduction may be aided by percutaneous K-wire manipulation [28,29,52,67]. Some authors, however, stated that the manipulation by the K-wire in proximity to the physis may cause abnormalities to the physis or risk of neurological damage, and advised against it [32]. Small series were published which demonstrated other options to facilitate reduction: a forceps may be introduced ulnar to the radial neck [58], or a small elevator may be introduced at the fracture site [19]. Nevertheless, in the series that described an elevator-assisted reduction technique, a premature physis fusion occurred in 4/10 patients.

4.2. Choice of Treatment and Relation to Postoperative ROM

Although one of the case series showed favorable results of CIMP [30], our combined analysis shows that there is a better ROM following K-wire fixation compared to CIMP fixation, which is significant in fractures angulated >60 degrees. Potentially, this difference may be explained by the low number of patients reported in single case series, which renders a high risk of bias.

4.3. Open Reduction (OR)

OR should only be performed when closed reduction fails. For example, the introduction of an intramedullary device may be challenging if angulation exceeds 80° [68]. A small incision (<3 cm) is recommended [20], the annular ligament should be preserved, and instruments that could damage the radial head during reduction should be avoided. The use of a “Joy stick” K-wire in the proximal fragment to aid fracture reduction is favored over the use of clamps to prevent potential damage to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) [69].
Poor results following OR may be caused by damage of the blood supply [70], proximal radioulnar joint adhesion [8], or periarticular ossification [57,71]. Potentially, the focal damage to tissues due to trauma plays a role [8]. Nevertheless, interposing soft tissue makes open reduction necessary in some cases [32]. In all fracture angulation groups, loss of motion was seen in about half of the children treated with open reduction. We therefore agree with Klitscher et al. [22], who stated: “Every manipulative technique should be tried before open reduction is chosen”. However, there may be bias because OR was sometimes described as the last available option when closed reduction failed.
Although some authors stated that if the radial head was stable following OR, fixation was not always necessary [8], this is disputed by our high percentage of loss of ROM in non-fixated fractures after OR. Given the fact that this percentage is significantly lower in the CRIF groups, fixation by an intramedullary nail or K-wire fixation should be considered, even after OR.
The results of this systematic review are subject to some limitations. First of all, the overall level of evidence is low. Almost all articles were level 4, and some were level 3. The overall quality of included articles is mediocre, with a risk of selection bias in 10 articles, information bias in 15 articles, and confounding bias in 18 articles. Several articles described a new or modified surgical technique without a power analysis for group size [32,33], and without a statistical analysis to compare to traditional techniques or a clear comparative design. The low incidence of displaced radial neck fractures and subsequently small cohort sizes played a role. The scores for the MINORS criteria were low for all studies, mainly due to the retrospective character of all case series that were included.
Secondly, this article only focuses on fracture angulation without considering the effect of fracture translation or rotation. In addition, associated injuries, such as ipsilateral olecranon fracture, ipsilateral fracture of the medial epicondyle, or elbow instability, were not registered; however, they can be present in 50% of children suffering a radial neck fracture [31,39]. The influence of the presence of a more extensive injury on the choice of treatment for the radial neck fracture [17] or the postoperative outcome [25,40] is still subject to discussion [18]. Some authors stated ROM would not be impaired [42]; others disagreed and showed a less favorable prognosis when associated injuries were present [17,39,42,48].
Thirdly, growth can behave like a friend or an enemy in children and might affect the outcomes. Nevertheless, a radial neck fracture is near the minimal active proximal physis, which results in less correction than in distal radius fractures. To minimize the influence of correction by growth, we only included children with a minimal follow-up of one year.
The influence of immobilization in the non-conservative groups could not be calculated. There was no evidence that postoperative immobilization had any advantages [57,72], and the worse outcome in ROM was seen when the elbow was immobilized for more than three weeks [37]. It is noteworthy that almost none of the included studies mentioned physiotherapy. Only Wang et al. [57] described “exercises under supervision (…) 1 day after operation”, and Walcher et al. [33] mentioned physiotherapy only in one complex case.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review shows that conservative treatment with or without the closed reduction of pediatric radial neck fractures with primary angulation up to 30° results in good elbow function. In radial neck fractures with an angulation of >60°, closed reduction followed by K-wire fixation may have an advantage over intramedullary fracture fixation, but this difference is not significant in fractures angulated 31–60°. Open reduction should only be performed if closed reduction fails, and caution should be taken not to (further) damage the physis and radial head vascularization.

Author Contributions

K.I.M.v.d.E., G.J.B., J.W.C. and L.C.L. performed study selection and quality assessment. K.I.M.v.d.E. and L.C.L. performed data extraction and data analysis. L.C.L. and M.R. performed the statistical analysis. M.R. and J.W.C. supervised methodological accuracy and the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The fee for publication of this article was partially paid by the CORAL (Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar) research fund, and partially by the orthopaedic surgery research fund of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Access to the database may be requested by email via the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank W.M. Bramer, medical librarian, for his support in the systematic search. We thank the Centre for Orthopedic Research Alkmaar (CORAL), The Netherlands, and D. Eygendaal for their support in publishing this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Appendix A

Literature search on 17 November 2021:
Embase.com
(('radius fracture'/de AND ('elbow'/de OR 'radioulnar joint'/de)) OR (((Radial OR radius OR forearm*) NEAR/6 (neck OR elbow OR proximal*) NEAR/6 (fracture* OR trauma* OR injur*))):ab,ti) AND ('body posture'/de OR 'movement (physiology)'/de OR 'motor dysfunction'/de OR (pronation* OR supination* OR motion* OR rotat* OR movement* OR (elbow* NEAR/6 (perform* OR kinematic* OR kinetic* OR function* OR dysfunction*)) OR Broberg OR Morrey ):ab,ti)
Medline Ovid
(("Radius Fractures"/ AND ("elbow"/ OR "Elbow Joint"/ )) OR (((Radial OR radius OR forearm*) ADJ6 (neck OR elbow OR proximal*) ADJ6 (fracture* OR trauma* OR injur*))).ab,ti.) AND ("Pronation"/ OR "Supination"/ OR "movement"/ OR "Movement Disorders"/ OR (pronation* OR supination* OR motion* OR rotat* OR movement* OR (elbow* ADJ6 (perform* OR kinematic* OR kinetic* OR function* OR dysfunction*)) OR Broberg OR Morrey ).ab,ti.)
Cochrane
((((Radial OR radius OR forearm*) NEAR/6 (neck OR elbow OR proximal*) NEAR/6 (fracture* OR trauma* OR injur*))):ab,ti) AND ((pronation* OR supination* OR motion* OR rotat* OR movement* OR (elbow* NEAR/6 (perform* OR kinematic* OR kinetic* OR function* OR dysfunction*)) OR Broberg OR Morrey ):ab,ti)
Web of science
TS=(((((Radial OR radius OR forearm*) NEAR/5 (neck OR elbow OR proximal*) NEAR/5 (fracture* OR trauma* OR injur*)))) AND ((pronation* OR supination* OR motion* OR rotat* OR movement* OR (elbow* NEAR/5 (perform* OR kinematic* OR kinetic* OR function* OR dysfunction*)) OR Broberg OR Morrey )))
PubMed publisher
(("Radius Fractures"[mh] AND ("elbow"[mh] OR "Elbow Joint"[mh] )) OR (((Radial OR radius OR forearm*[tiab]) AND (neck OR elbow OR proximal*[tiab]) AND (fracture*[tiab] OR trauma*[tiab] OR injur*[tiab])))) AND ("Pronation"[mh] OR "Supination"[mh] OR "movement"[mh] OR "Movement Disorders"[mh] OR (pronation*[tiab] OR supination*[tiab] OR motion*[tiab] OR rotat*[tiab] OR movement*[tiab] OR (elbow*[tiab] AND (perform*[tiab] OR kinematic*[tiab] OR kinetic*[tiab] OR function*[tiab] OR dysfunction*[tiab])) OR Broberg OR Morrey )) AND publisher[sb]
Google scholar
"Radial|radius neck fracture|fractures"|"proximal Radial|radius fracture|fractures" pronation|supination

References

  1. Steinberg, E.; Salama, R.; Wientroub, S. Radial Head and Neck Fractures in Children. J. Paediatr. Orthop. 1988, 8, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Newman, J. Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Injury 1977, 2, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kojima, K.; Baumgaertner, M.; Trafton, P.; Ring, D.; Kloen, P. Proximal Forearm 21-A2.2: AO Foundation. Available online: https://www2.aofoundation.org/wps/portal/surgery?bone=Radius&segment=Proximal&classification=21-A2.2&showPage=indication (accessed on 21 June 2021).
  4. Tibrewal, S.; Saha, S.; Haddo, O. Percutaneous K-Wire Butress Technique for Displaced Radial Neck Fracture. Orthop. Traumatol. Rehabil. 2013, 15, 169–174. [Google Scholar]
  5. O’Brien, P. Injuries Involving the Proximal Radial Epiphysis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1965, 41, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  6. Randomisli, T.; Rosen, A. Controversies Regarding Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1998, 353, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Judet, J.; Judet, R.; Lefranc, J. Fracture of the Radial Head in the Child. Ann. Chir. 1962, 16, 1377–1385. [Google Scholar]
  8. Falciglia, F.; Giordano, M.; Aulisa, A.; Di Lazzaro, A.; Guzzanti, V. Radial Neck Fractures in Children: Results When Open Reduction Is Indicated. Pediatr. Orthop. 2014, 34, 756–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bramer, W.M.; Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kleijnen, J.; Franco, O.H. Optimal Database Combinations for Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Exploratory Study. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022). Available online: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  11. Al-Aubaidi, Z.; Pedersen, N.W.; Nielsen, K.D. Radial Neck Fractures in Children Treated with the Centromedullary Métaizeau Technique. Injury 2012, 43, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bilal, Ö.; Murat Kalender, A.; Karsli, B.; Kilinçoğlu, V.; Kinaş, M.; Dündar, N. Radiological and Functional Outcomes of Modified Metaizeau Technique in Displaced Radial Neck Fractures. Acta. Orthop. Belg. 2021, 87, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brandão, G.F.; Soares, C.B.; Teixeira, L.E.M.; Boechat, L.D.C. Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children: Association of the Métaizeau and Böhler Surgical Techniques. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2010, 30, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Çevik, N.; Cansabuncu, G.; Akalın, Y.; Otuzbir, A.; Öztürk, A.; Özkan, Y. Functional and Radiological Results of Percutaneous K-Wire Aided Métaizeau Technique in the Treatment of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Acta. Orthop. Traumatol. Turc. 2018, 52, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cha, S.M.; Shin, H.D.; Kim, K.C.; Han, S.C. Percutaneous Reduction and Leverage Fixation Using K-Wires in Paediatric Angulated Radial Neck Fractures. Int. Orthop. 2012, 36, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Cossio, A.; Cazzaniga, C.; Gridavilla, G.; Gallone, D.; Zatti, G. Paediatric Radial Neck Fractures: One-Step Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation. Injury 2014, 45, S80–S84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Endele, S.M.; Wirth, T.; Eberhardt, O.; Fernandez, F.F. The Treatment of Radial Neck Fractures in Children According to Métaizeau. J. Pediatr. Orthop. Part B 2010, 19, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fowles, J.V.; Kassab, M.T. Observations Concerning Radial Neck Fractures in Children. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 1986, 6, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Futami, I.; Tsukamoto, Y.; Itoman, M. Percutaneous Reduction of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 1995, 4, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gutiérrez-De La Iglesia, D.; Pérez-López, L.M.; Cabrera-González, M.; Knörr-Giménez, J. Surgical Techniques for Displaced Radial Neck Fractures: Predictive Factors of Functional Results. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2017, 37, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jones, E.R.; Esah, M. Displaced Fractures of the Ncek of the Radius in Children. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1971, 53, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Klitscher, D.; Richter, S.; Bodenschatz, K.; Hückstädt, T.; Weltzien, A.; Müller, L.P.; Schier, F.; Rommens, P.M. Evaluation of Severely Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children Treated with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2009, 29, 698–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Koca, K.; Erdem, Y.; Neyişci, Ç.; Erşen, Ö. Intramedullary Elastic Nailing of the Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Acta. Orthop. Traumatol. Turc. 2017, 51, 451–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Massetti, D.; Marinelli, M.; Facco, G.; Falcioni, D.; Giampaolini, N.; Specchia, N.; Gigante, A.P. Percutaneous K-Wire Leverage Reduction and Retrograde Transphyseal k-Wire Fixation of Angulated Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2020, 30, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Metaizeau, J.; Lascombes, P.; Lemelle, J.; Finlayson, D.; Prevot, J. Reduction and Fixation of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures by Closed Intramedullary Pinning. J. Paediatr. Orthop. 1993, 13, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Monson, R.; Black, B.; Reed, M. A New Closed Reduction Technique for the Treatment of Radial Neck Fractures in Children. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2009, 29, 243–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Shah, M.M.; Gupta, G.; Rabbi, Q.; Bohra, V.; Wang, K.K. Close Reduction Technique for Severely Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Indian J. Orthop. 2021, 55, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Stiefel, D.; Meuli, M.; Altermatt, S. Fractures of the Neck of the Radius in Children. Early Experience with Intramedullary Pinning. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2001, 83, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tanagho, A.; Ansara, S. Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation Using Two K-Wires in Paediatric Angulated Radial Neck Fractures. J. Hand Microsurg. 2016, 7, 314–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Tarallo, L.; Mugnai, R.; Fiacchi, F.; Capra, F.; Catani, F. Management of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children: Percutaneous Pinning vs. Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2013, 14, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tibone, J.; Stoltz, M. Fractures of the Radial Head and Neck in Children. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1981, 63, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ugutmen, E.; Ozkan, K.; Ozkan, F.U.; Eceviz, E.; Altintas, F.; Unay, K. Reduction and Fixation of Radius Neck Fractures in Children with Intramedullary Pin. J. Pediatr. Orthop. Part B 2010, 19, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Walcher, F.; Rose, S.; Mutschler, W.; Marzi, I. Minimally Invasive Technique for Reduction and Stabilization of Radial Head and Radial Neck Fractures in Children. A Description of a Modified Technique and an Overview of the Literature. Eur. J. Trauma 2000, 26, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yallapragada, R.K.; Maripuri, S.N. Radial Neck Fractures in Children: A Surgical Tip Using the Metaizeau Technique to Improve Stability of the Reduction. J. Orthop. 2020, 17, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, F.Y.; Wang, X.D.; Zhen, Y.F.; Guo, Z.X.; Dai, J.; Zhu, L.Q. Treatment of Severely Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children with Percutaneous K-Wire Leverage and Closed Intramedullary Pinning. Medicine 2016, 95, e2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Baddula, A.R.; Thirupathi, G. A Retrospective Analysis of Management of Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures by Metaizeau Technique. J. Dent. Med. Sci. 2018, 17, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Badoi, A.; Frech-Dörfler, M.; Häcker, F.M.; Mayr, J. Influence of Immobilization Time on Functional Outcome in Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2016, 26, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Baghdadi, S.; Shah, A.S.; Lawrence, J.T.R. Open Reduction of Radial Neck Fractures in Children: Injury Severity Predicts the Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2021, 30, 2418–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Basmajian, H.G.; Choi, P.D.; Huh, K.; Sankar, W.N.; Wells, L.; Arkader, A. Radial Neck Fractures in Children: Experience from Two Level-1 Trauma Centers. J. Pediatr. Orthop. Part B 2014, 23, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bastard, C.; Le Hanneur, M.; Pannier, S.; Fitoussi, F. Radial Neck Fractures in Children Secondary to Horse-Riding Accidents: A Comparative Study. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 1293–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Biyani, A.; Mehara, A.; Bhan, S. Percutaneous Pinning for Radial Neck Fractures. Injury 1994, 25, 169–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. De Mattos, C.B.; Ramski, D.E.; Kushare, I.V.; Angsanuntsukh, C.; Flynn, J.M. Radial Neck Fractures in Children and Adolescents: An Examination of Operative and Nonoperative Treatment and Outcomes. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2016, 36, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Du, X.; Yu, L.; Xiong, Z.; Chen, G.; Zou, J.; Wu, X.; Xiong, B.; Wang, B. Percutaneous Leverage Reduction with Two Kirschner Wires Combined with the Métaizeau Technique versus Open Reduction plus Internal Fixation with a Single Kirschner-Wire for Treating Judet IV Radial Neck Fractures in Children. J. Int. Med. Res. 2019, 47, 5497–5507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Dietzel, M.; Scherer, S.; Esser, M.; Kirschner, H.J.; Fuchs, J.; Lieber, J. Fractures of the Proximal Radius in Children: Management and Results of 100 Consecutive Cases. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Henrikson, B. Isolated Fractures of the Proximal End of the Radius in Children. Epidemiology, Treatment and Prognosis. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1969, 40, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Jiang, H.; Wu, Y.; Dang, Y.; Qiu, Y. Closed Reduction Using the Percutaneous Leverage Technique and Internal Fixation with K-Wires to Treat Angulated Radial Neck Fractures in Children-Case Report. Medicine 2017, 96, e5806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kiran, M.; Bruce, C.; George, H.; Garg, N.; Walton, R. Intramedullary Devices in the Management of Judet III and IV Paediatric Radial Neck Fractures. Chin. J. Traumatol. Engl. Ed. 2018, 21, 34–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lindham, S.; Hugosson, C. The Significance of Associated Lesions Including Dislocation in Fractures of the Neck of the Radius in Children. Acta. Orthop. 1979, 50, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Okçu, G.; Aktuglu, K. Surgical Treatment of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children with Metaizeau Technique Çocuklarda Ayrılmıs Radius Boyun Kırıklarının Metaizeau Teknigi Ile Cerrahi Tedavisi. Turk. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2007, 13, 122–127. [Google Scholar]
  50. Qiao, F.; Jiang, F. Closed Reduction of Severely Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rodriguez Merchan, E. Percutaneous Reduction of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children Nov. J. Trauma 1994, 37, 812–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Steele, J.A.; Kerr, H. Angulated Radial Neck Fractures in Children, a Prospective Study of Percutaneous Reduction. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1992, 74, 760–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Su, Y.; Jin, C.; Duan, X.; Wang, J.; Li, K. Treatment of Displaced Radial Neck Fractures under Ultrasonographic Guidance in Children. Int. Orthop. 2020, 44, 2337–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Trabelsi, A.; Khalifa, M.A.; Brahem, R.; Jedidi, M.; Bouattour, K.; Osman, W.; Ayeche, M.L. Ben Radial Neck Fracture in Children: Anatomic and Functional Results of Metaizeau Technique. Pan. Afr. Med. J. 2020, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ursei, M.; Sales De Gauzy, J.; Knorr, J.; Abid, A.; Darodes, P.; Cahuzac, J.P. Surgical Treatment of Radial Neck Fractures in Children by Intramedullary Pinning. Acta. Orthop. Belg. 2006, 72, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Vocke, A.; Von Laer, L. Treatment and Prognosis of Displaced Proximal Radius Fractures. Tech. Orthop. 2000, 15, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, J.; Chen, W.; Guo, M.; Su, Y.; Zhang, Y. Percutaneous Reduction and Intramedullary Fixation Technique for Displaced Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures. J. Pediatr. Orthop. Part B 2013, 22, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Watkins, C.J.; Yeung, C.M.; Rademacher, E.; Kramer, D.E. Percutaneous Leverage Technique for Reduction of Radial Neck Fractures in Children: Technical Tips. J. Child. Orthop. 2020, 14, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xia, A.; You, C.; Han, J.; Wu, D.; Xia, Y.; Wang, J. Comparison of Different Treatments for Children with Radial Neck Fracture and Analysis of Prognostic Factors. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zimmerman, R.M.; Kalish, L.A.; Hresko, M.T.; Waters, P.M.; Bae, D.S. Surgical Management of Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. A 2013, 95, 1825–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rodriguez Merchan, E. Displaced Fractures of the Head and Neck of the Radius in Children: Open Reduction and Temporary Transarticular Internal Fixation. Orthopedics 1991, 14, 697–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ali, A.A. Outcome of Transcapitellar K-Wire Fixation for Radial Neck Fractures. Mustansiriya Med. J. 2014, 13, 26–32. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kumar, S.; Mishra, A.; Odak, S.; Dwyer, J. Treatment Principles, Prognostic Factors and Controversies in Radial Neck Fractures in Children: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, S456–S463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kong, J.; Lewallen, L.; Elliott, M.; Jo, C.H.; Mcintosh, A.L.; Ho, C.A. Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures: Which Ones Can Be Successfully Closed Reduced in the Emergency Department? J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2021, 41, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Sengab, A.; Krijnen, P.; Schipper, I.B. Risk Factors for Fracture Redisplacement after Reduction and Cast Immobilization of Displaced Distal Radius Fractures in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2020, 46, 789–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Maccagnano, G.; Notarnicola, A.; Pesce, V.; Tafuri, S.; Mudoni, S.; Nappi, V.; Moretti, B. Failure Predictor Factors of Conservative Treatment in Pediatric Forearm Fractures. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 5930106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Pesudo, J.; Aracil, J.; Barcelo, M. Leverage Method in Displaced Fractures of the Radial Neck in Children. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1982, 169, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Devgan, A.; Singh, R.; Kumar, S.; Verma, V.; Magu, N.; Siwach, R. Indirect Reduction and Intramedullary Pinning in Severely Displaced Radial Neck Fractures in Children. Int. J. Clin. Med. 2011, 2, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Demetri, L.; Young, C.; Patterson, J.T.; Kandemir, U.; Morshed, S.; Immerman, I.; Lee, N.H. Management of Metadiaphyseal Proximal Radius Fractures. Tech. Hand Up. Extrem. Surg. 2021, 25, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Hemmer, J.; Happiette, A.; Muller, F.; Barbier, D.; Journeau, P. Prognostic Factors for Intramedullary Nailing in Radial Neck Fracture in Children. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 1287–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Eberl, R.; Singer, G.; Fruhmann, J.; Saxena, A.; Hoellwarth, M. Intramedullary Nailing for the Treatment of Dislocated Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2010, 20, 250–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Hilgert, R.; Dallek, M.; Rueger, J. Die Minimal-Invasive Behandlung Massiv Dislozierter Kindlicher Radiushalsfrakturen Durch Perkutane Joystick-Reposition Und Prevot-Nagelung Minimal Invasive Treatment of Massively Dislocated Radial Neck Fractures in Children by Percutaneous Joystick Repos. Unfallchirurg 2002, 105, 116–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Children 09 01049 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA-guided systematic search.
Figure 1. PRISMA-guided systematic search.
Children 09 01049 g001
Table
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Prospective or retrospective follow-up studyReview/meta-analysis
≥5 children with radial neck fracturesAge > 16 years
Fracture angulation should be reportedElbow prosthesis
Radiological imaging at presentationAnimals
Outcome: range of motion at follow-upLess than one year follow-up
Outcome linked to fracture angulation and treatment
Language: English, Dutch
Table
Table 2. Risk of bias assessment based on adapted Cochrane checklist.
Table 2. Risk of bias assessment based on adapted Cochrane checklist.
AuthorSelectionbiasInformationbiasConfounding
Al-Aubaidi (2012) [11]
Bilal (2021) [12]
Brandão (2010) [13]
Ҫevik (2018) [14]
Cha (2012) [15]
Cossio (2014) [16]
Endele (2010) [17]
Falciglia (2014) [8]
Fowles (1986) [18]
Futami (1995) [19]
Gutierrez-de la Iglesia (2015) [20]
Jones (1971) [21]
Klitscher (2009) [22]
Koca (2017) [23]
Massetti (2020) [24]
Metaizeau (1993) [25]
Monson (2009) [26]
Shah (2020) [27]
Stiefel (2001) [28]
Tanagho (2015) [29]
Tarallo (2013) [30]
Tibone (1981) [31]
Ugutmen (2010) [32]
Walcher (2000) [33]
Yallapragada (2020) [34]
Zhang (2016) [35]
Scores: green = low risk, orange = moderate risk, red = high risk.
Table
Table 3. Part a: Overview of included articles, part b: MINORS criteria.
Table 3. Part a: Overview of included articles, part b: MINORS criteria.
(a)
AuthorYearFracture ClassificationInjury TypeN1y FUMean Age in Years
(Range)		Mean Follow-Up in Years (Range)Outcome
Al-Aubaidi [11]2012Steeleall pt w/open physis treated with metaizeau161612 (9–15)3.3 (1.3–6.3)DASH
Bilal [12]2021>30°>30°,intramedullary nailing (TEN)151510.1 (6.4–15.8)2.1 (1.3–3)Tan&Mahadev
Brandão [13]2010O’BrienO’Brien type 328268.6 (6–13)4.3 (1.7–10)radiologic union, ROM
Ҫevik [14]2018JudetJudet 3/420209.75 (4–13)2.9 (1.1–7)ROM
Cha [15]2012JudetJudet 3/4131310.4 (6–13)3.5 (2.4–4.4)flynn score
Cossio [16]2014JudetJudet 3/4999.1 (6–12)2.2 (1–3)Tibone
Endele [17]2010Judetall RN# in a retrospective period54428 (1-13)4 (0.5–11)ROM
Falciglia [8]2014O’Brienall RN# in a retrospective period
without success of CR or KW		24247.1 (4.3–10.2)7.1 (3.2–12.1)MEPS
Fowles [18]1986<20°, >20°all RN# in a retrospective period23179.1 (5–13)1.5 (0.7–2.8)ROM
Futami [19]1995noneangulated RN# (not specified)10109 (6–13)uTibone and Stolz
Gutierrez-de la Iglesia [20]2015JudetJudet 3/45108 (3–15)1.2 (0.7–3.3)Tibone and Stolz, Ursei
Jones [21]197115–29°, 30–59°, 60–90°all RN# in a retrospective period341810 (5–13)5 (1–14)Steele
Klitscher [22]2009JudetJudet 3/42808 (5–11)2.7 (0.5–5.6)MEPS, Metaizeau
Koca [23]2017JudetJudet 311117.7 (6–10)2.0 (1.7–2.7)Leung/Peterson
Massetti [24]2020judetJudet 3/42007.8 (2–11)0.7–3.8MEPS
Metaizeau [25]1993JudetJudet 3/4474710.7 (5–13)4 (ns)MEPS
Monson [26]2009Degreesall RN# in a retrospecitve period669.5 (6–11)0.36Morrey, Metaizeau
Shah [27]2020JudetJudet 410108.6 (6–12)1 (0.8–1.3)Steinberg, Rodriguez-Merchan
Stiefel [28]2001JudetJudet 4668.4 (7–10.8)u (0.75–2.5)ROM
Tanagho [29]2015Steeleisolated metaphyseal RN# >30°999.6 (u)1.6 (u)Own rating system
Tarallo [30]2013JudetJudet 3/4202011 (6–16)3.5 (1.3–5.3)MEPS, Metaizeau
Tibone [31]1981Degreesall RN# in a retrospective period23239.2 (4–14)3.15 (2.0–8.0)ROM
Ugutmen [32]2010JudetRN# with open growth plates16168 (6–13)2 (1.5–3.3)Metaizeau
Walcher [33]2000JudetJudet 2/3, failed CR507 (u)3 (u)ROM, own rating system
Yallapragada [34]2020JudetJudet 3/42108 (u)0.4 (0.3–0.5)OES, Metaizeau
Zhang [35]2016JudetJudet 3/45008.4 (5.6–13)2 (u)MEPS
5693528.962.69
(b)
AuthorYearMINORS TotalAimConsecutive CasesEnd PointsBiasFollow-UpLost to FUStudy Size
Al-Aubaidi [11]201271210210
Bilal [12]202161121200
Brandão [13]2010102221210
Ҫevik [14]2018102222200
Cha [15]2012102222200
Cossio [16]201481122200
Endele [17]201091121220
Falciglia [8]201482121110
Fowles [18]198681210220
Futami [19]199520000200
Gutierrez-de la Iglesia [20]201582121200
Jones [21]197181111220
Klitscher [22]200991221210
Koca [23]201782121200
Massetti [24]202052112100
Metaizeau [25]199372121100
Monson [26]200931110000
Shah [27]202040211100
Stiefel [28]200142110000
Tanagho [29]201541100110
Tarallo [30]201382121200
Tibone [31]198191221210
Ugutmen [32]201051111100
Walcher [33]200041101100
Yallapragada [34]202041111100
Zhang [35]201662110200
u = unknown; RN# = radial neck fractures; ROM = range of motion; MEPS = Mayo Elbow Performance Score; OES = Oxford Elbow Score.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Langenberg, L.C.; van den Ende, K.I.M.; Reijman, M.; Boersen, G.J.; Colaris, J.W. Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review Regarding the Influence of Fracture Treatment on Elbow Function. Children 2022, 9, 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071049

AMA Style

Langenberg LC, van den Ende KIM, Reijman M, Boersen GJ, Colaris JW. Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review Regarding the Influence of Fracture Treatment on Elbow Function. Children. 2022; 9(7):1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Langenberg, Lisette C., Kimberly I. M. van den Ende, Max Reijman, G. J. (Juliën) Boersen, and Joost W. Colaris. 2022. "Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review Regarding the Influence of Fracture Treatment on Elbow Function" Children 9, no. 7: 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071049

APA Style

Langenberg, L. C., van den Ende, K. I. M., Reijman, M., Boersen, G. J., & Colaris, J. W. (2022). Pediatric Radial Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review Regarding the Influence of Fracture Treatment on Elbow Function. Children, 9(7), 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop