Articles Vol. 67 No. CĐ7-Trường ĐH Y Dược Hải Phòng 06/07/2026

TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF PEDIATRIC SUPRACONDYLAR HUMERAL FRACTURES USING CLOSED REDUCTION AND PERCUTANEOUS PINNING UNDER FLUOROSCOPIC GUIDANCE

Nguyen Huy Hoang1,2, Pham Ngoc Tuan3,4, Trinh Dinh Thanh5,6, Nguyen Minh Tuan1,2
1 Ha Tinh Provincial General Hospital, Ha Tinh Province
2 Bệnh viện đa khoa tỉnh Hà Tĩnh
3 Hoa Binh General Hospital, Phu Tho Province
4 Bệnh viện Đa khoa Hoà Bình- Phú Thọ
5 Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy
6 Trường Đại học Y Dược Hải Phòng
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD7.5628
16 Views
0 Downloads
Keywords
supracondylar humeral fracture; percutaneous pinning; fluoroscopy; Flynn criteria.
Abstract

 Objective: To evaluate outcomes of closed reduction and percutaneous pinning for supracondylar humeral fractures under fluoroscopic guidance.

Methods: A combined retrospective and prospective descriptive study on 115 patients treated at Ha Tinh General Hospital (Jan 2024–Dec 2025). Data included demographics, Gartland classification, fixation methods, union time, complications, and functional outcomes assessed by Flynn criteria.

Results: Patients aged 6–10 years accounted for 49.6%, males 67.8%. The main cause was fall on outstretched hand (39.1%). Gartland type III was most common (53.0%). Cross pinning was used in 56.5%. Mean operative time was 30 ± 15.9 minutes; mean union time 8 ± 8.5 weeks. Good union achieved in 84.3%, with no nonunion. According to Flynn criteria, good and excellent outcomes reached 88.7%. Complications included elbow stiffness (10.4%) and pin tract infection (4.3%), with no nerve injury recorded.

Conclusion: Closed reduction with percutaneous pinning under fluoroscopy is an effective method, providing high union rates, good functional outcomes, and low complication rates.

References
[1]
Otsuka NY, Kasser JR. Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1997;5(1):19–26. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-199701000-00002 Google Scholar
[2]
Cheng JC, Shen WY. Limb fracture pattern in different pediatric age groups: a study of 3,350 children. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7(1):15–22. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-199302000-00004 Google Scholar
[3]
Skaggs DL, Cluck MW, Mostofi A, Flynn JM, Kay RM. Lateral-entry pin fixation in the management of supracondylar fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(4):702–707. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200404000-00010 Google Scholar
[4]
Wilkins KE. The operative management of supracondylar fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 1990;21(2):269–289. DOI: 10.1016/S0030-5898(20)31595-7 Google Scholar
[5]
Kocher MS, Kasser JR, Waters PM, et al. Lateral entry compared with medial and lateral entry pin fixation for displaced supracondylar fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):706–712. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01312 Google Scholar
[6]
Zionts LE, McKellop HA, Hathaway R. Torsional strength of pin configurations used to fix supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(2):253–256. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199402000-00013 Google Scholar
[7]
Flynn JC, Matthews JG, Benoit RL. Blind pinning of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56(2):263–272. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-197456020-00002 Google Scholar
[8]
Pavone V, Riccioli M, Vescio A, Lucenti L, Sessa G, Testa G. Supracondylar humerus fractures in children: management and treatment. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016;17(3):187–196. DOI: 10.1007/s10195-016-0412-7 Google Scholar
[9]
Zhao JG, Wang J, Zhang P. Lateral versus crossed pin fixation for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(36):e11652. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011652 Google Scholar
[10]
Brauer CA, Lee BM, Bae DS, Waters PM, Kocher MS. A systematic review of medial and lateral entry pinning versus lateral entry pinning for supracondylar fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):706–712. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00391 Google Scholar