RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Management of supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHF) with coexisting median nerve injury is controversial. Although many nerve injuries improve with the reduction and stabilization of the fracture, the speed and completeness of recovery are unclear. This study investigates median nerve recovery time using the serial examination. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of SCHF-related nerve injuries referred to a tertiary hand therapy unit between 2017 and 2021 was interrogated. Factors related to the injury (vascularity, Gartland grade, open vs. closed fracture) and treatment (fixation modality, adequacy, timing of reduction, vascular and nerve intervention, and secondary procedures) were assessed.Primary outcomes were the motor recovery of Medical Research Council (MRC) grade 4 or 5 in flexor pollicis longus or flexor digitorum profundus (index) and detection of the 2.83 Semmes Weinstein monofilament.A retrospective clinical note review of all SCHF presenting during the same period was also conducted. RESULTS: Of 1096 SCHF, 74 (7%) had an associated median nerve palsy. Twenty-one patients [mean age 7 years (SD 1.6)] with SCHF-related median nerve injuries underwent serial examination. Nineteen (90%) were modified Gartland III or IV, and 10 (48%) were pulseless on presentation. The mean follow-up was 324 days.The mean motor recovery time was 120 days (SD 71). Four (27%) and 2 (13%) patients had not achieved MRC grade 4 by 6 months and 2 years, respectively. Only 50% attained MRC grade 5 at 2 years.When compared with closed reduction, those who underwent open reduction recovered motor function 80 days faster (mean 71 vs. 151 d, P =0.03) and sensory function 110 days faster (52 vs. 162, P =0.02). Fewer patients recovered after closed reduction (8 of 10) than open (5 of 5).Modified Gartland grade, vascular status, adequacy of reduction, and secondary surgery were not associated with recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: Median nerve recovery seems to occur slower than previously thought, is often incomplete, and is affected by treatment decisions (open vs. closed reduction). Retrospective reporting methods may overestimate median nerve recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-therapeutic.
