Outcome after XXXX repair: Does construct type matter?

@entity1 @entity174 @entity260 @entity2701 @entity130
PURPOSE: This study compares clinical and functional outcomes of @entity1 with displaced @entity174 treated with either @entity2701 ( @entity2701 ) or a hook plate construct. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of @entity174 operatively treated with either @entity2701 or plate fixation (PF) using a hook plate over a 7-year period. @entity1 demographics, @entity130 , and surgical management were recorded. @entity174 were classified according to the Mayo system. Measured outcomes included range of elbow motion, time to union, and development of @entity260 . Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) scores were obtained for all @entity1 . All @entity1 were followed for a minimum of 6  months. RESULTS: A total of 48 @entity1 were included in this study, 23 treated with @entity2701 and 25 treated with hook PF. Groups did not differ with respect to @entity1 demographics, Mayo fracture type, or duration of follow-up. @entity1 undergoing PF had less terminal extension than @entity2701 @entity1 (-8.6        7   vs. -3.5        9.3  , p  =  0.036) and a longer time to radiographic union (19      8 vs. 12      6  weeks, p  =  0.001). There were no differences in rates of symptomatic hardware, MEPI scores, or other clinical outcomes. Two @entity1 in each group required a second surgery. CONCLUSIONS: @entity2701 and PF of @entity174 had similarly excellent functional outcomes in this study. @entity1 undergoing PF had a longer time to union and slightly worse extension at final follow-up. @entity2701 remains an effective treatment for appropriately selected @entity174 and in this cohort outperformed plate osteosynthesis.
