Vol. 11, Issue 3 (2025)

A prospective study to evaluate the outcomes of both conservative and surgical treatments for supracondylar humerus fractures among paediatric population

Author(s):

Arnav P Rathod, Yogesh B Rathod, Rajendra Baitule and Ganesh Pundkar

Abstract:

Background: Supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHF) account for around 60% of elbow fractures and 85% of surgically treated fractures in the paediatric population. Effective management is crucial to ensure favourable outcomes and prevent complications.

Aims and Objectives: The purpose of our study is to determine the functional outcome of conservation versus surgical management of displaced Supracondylar fracture of humerus.

Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted among 60 patients aged between 5 and 15 years, all diagnosed with displaced supracondylar humerus fractures Gartland type II and III. They were divided into 2 groups for study purpose. Group A includes 30 patients managed conservatively and Group B includes 30 patients managed surgically either closed or open reduction followed by internal fixation using medial and lateral K-wires, along with early elbow mobilization. Both clinical and radiological evaluations were performed, and final outcomes were assessed using Flynn’s criteria.

Results: By Flynn’s criteria, 08 (26.67%) excellent results were obtained in patients who were treated conservatively, and 25 (83.33%) excellent results were obtained in the surgical treatment group and the difference is statistically significant P value <0.05.

Conclusion: Early surgical intervention in supracondylar humerus fractures is recommended to minimize the risk of complications and improve functional outcomes.

Pages: 102-105  |  270 Views  73 Downloads

How to cite this article:
Arnav P Rathod, Yogesh B Rathod, Rajendra Baitule and Ganesh Pundkar. A prospective study to evaluate the outcomes of both conservative and surgical treatments for supracondylar humerus fractures among paediatric population. Int. J. Orthop. Sci. 2025;11(3):102-105. DOI: 10.22271/ortho.2025.v11.i3b.3793