الفهرس 
IntrductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 129 |  |  |
| | | from | 129 | | |
Abstract
Olecranon fractures constitute a large proportion of injuries about the elbow. Several fracture patterns are recognized, with each pattern lending itself to a different treatment modality ranging from conservative treatment to fixation by different methods like TBW ,hook plate, intramedullary screw with or without tension and single Rush pin fixation.
No single technique is suitable for the management of all olecranon fractures. In deciding how to treat this common trauma presentation, the surgeon needs a good understanding of the anatomy, different fracture morphologies, surgical options and potential complications
The goals of olecranon fracture management are to restore and maintain joint stability, articular congruity, strength, and a pain-free arc of functional elbow motion.
In the current study, thirty patients with olecranon fracture mayo classification type II were surgically treated and followed up. The patients were selected by randomized closed envelop method and divided into two groups according to the method of surgical treatment: group I included fifteen patients treated by TBW and group II included fifteen patients treated by hook plate.
The age incidence ranged from 25 years to 58 years, The mean age of group I was 42.8±10.60 (range, 25-57) years. While in group II, the mean age was 40.07±11.14 (range, 27-58) years, 25 males were affected while 5 females were affected. The right side was affected in 21 patients (70 %) and the left in 9 patients (30%). There were 6 patients had direct injuries while 13 patients had indirect injuries and 11 patients had combined injuries.
No significant difference was found between the studied groups regarding the age, sex, side affected, occupation , mechanism of injury , associated injuries, , time lapsed to surgery .
All patients were followed up for six months and studied both clinically and radiologically according to the murphy scoring system as regards: pain, function, range of motion and radiological joint space.
No significant difference was found regarding post operative pain, function ,ROM, radiological joint space and associated injuries in relation total score.
A Significant difference was found between the age and total score in the two studied groups also between the studied groups regarding fracture classification in relation to total score and in group I the non-comminuted fractures in relation to total score and comminuted fractures in group II in relation to total score . The comminuted fractures showed better results in group II in comparison to group I, in group I the final score was 15.88±1.64, while in group II was 17.33±1.00. On comparing the two group regarding final score it was found that the comminuted fractures in group II had better results than group I. On the other hand in non comminuted fractures group I show significant increase in final score than group II, in group I the final score was 17.43±0.98, while in group II was 15.33±2.34, there was a significant increase in group I than group II.
The complications encountered in this study were superficial and deep infections, limited ROM, wire migration.
Implant removal was done to 3 patients one plate for chronic infection and two TBW for limited ROM and hard metal prominence.