Common Fractures in Children
Blaze D. Emerson
Bijan J. Ameri
Pediatric fractures are a very common reason for physician visits with 17.6% to 20% of pediatric injuries associated with fractures.1,2 Furthermore, it is estimated that 42% of boys and 27% of girls will sustain a fracture of some form before the age of 16 years.2
Fracture incidence increases linearly with age, peaking at approximately 12 years, then decreasing until 16 years of age. This is possibly related to a decline in female fractures with more advanced skeletal maturity.2
Most commonly, fractures are due to low-energy trauma and occur in the upper extremity, especially the distal radius.2,3
The incidence of specific fractures, in descending order, is distal radius 23.3%, hand 20.1%, elbow area 12.0%, clavicle 6.4%, radius shaft 6.4%, tibia shaft 6.2%, foot 5.9%, distal tibia 4.4%, femur 2.3%, humerus 1.4%, and other 11.6%.2
BONE PHYSIOLOGY
Pediatric fractures in children are challenging, as they often involve regions of growing bone. The unique anatomy of the immature skeleton includes the epiphysis, metaphysis, and diaphysis (Figure 10.1).
The epiphysis is a secondary ossification center and is separated from the metaphysis by the cartilaginous physis.
The epiphysis and physis are primary growth centers, and damage may lead to growth derangements including angu-lar deformity, limb-length discrepancy, and/or epiphyseal distortion.2
Physeal injuries in children are common and may account for up to 30% of all pediatric fractures.2
The age of ossification of the epiphysis is variable, which makes fracture identification difficult. X-rays of the unaffected side may be needed for comparison.
The unique physiology of immature bone gives rise to several unique fracture patterns. As discussed previously, physeal fractures are common.
The Salter-Harris classification system stratifies injuries based on their likelihood of growth derangement, with higher numbers being severe (Figure 10.2).
Also, children have thicker periosteum with a greater osteo-genic potential than that of an adult’s.4 This unique periosteal profile within children’s bones leads to a greater propensity to bend rather than break when exposed to stress.
A torus fracture (buckle fracture) occurs when a longitudi-nal force causes the periosteum to fail in compression rather than breaking completely (Figure 10.3).
Greenstick fractures occur when the bone fails on the ten-sion side of the cortex as the result of a lateral force being applied to a long bone (Figure 10.4). Both torus and greenstick fractures are incomplete.
HEALING AND REMODELING
Anatomic reduction in a pediatric patient is not as crucial as in an adult because of the bone remodeling potential of children. Remodeling in the diaphysis and metaphysis may realign previously maligned fragments; however, anatomic
reduction should always be the goal owing to the unpredictability of the remodeling process.
The potential for complete remodeling of the fracture is greater with younger age, fractures closer to the physis, and alignment of angulation in the normal plane of motion.2
Furthermore, children are better able to withstand prolonged immobilization and usually do not suffer from postimmobili-zation stiffness and decreased range of motion, which can be a debilitating problem in adults.
Children’s bones remodel and grow at an accelerated rate. As a result, pediatric fractures often exhibit an increased rate of longitudinal growth after a fracture. Therefore, it is some-time recommended that during realignment there exists some shortening or overlap of the fragments to account for this expected longitudinal growth.1
In general, pediatric patients have an excellent prognosis after a fracture. It is recommended to consult an orthope-dic surgeon when the fractures are displaced, especially with Salter-Harris type classifications above III.1
If the clinician decides to manage the fracture, it is suggested that X-ray views are obtained monthly for 3 to 6 months to ensure optimal healing response.1
DISTAL RADIUS
Epidemiology
Distal radius fractures are the most common pediatric frac-ture with an incidence of 23.3% and are 3 times more common in boys than girls.2
Fracture incidence is increased around the adolescent growth spurt phase and is usually secondary to a sporting event.
Presentation
Generally, patients present with dorsal displacement/angula-tion of the carpus relative to the forearm (Figures 10.6 and 10.7). However, patients may present with volar displacement when the mechanism is a fall on a flexed wrist (Figure 10.8).
Patients will complain of pain, swelling, and limited motion of the wrist and hand.
Deformity will depend on the degree of fracture displacement; however, a “dinner fork” deformity may be noted with dorsally displaced fractures (Figure 10.9).
Figure 10.5 Colles fracture. (Reprinted with permission from Anatomical Chart Company. Hand and Wrist Anatomical Chart. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000.) |
Management
Standard anteroposterior (AP) and lateral X-ray views should be ordered if a fracture is suspected. Neurovascular examination includes the median, radial, and ulnar nerves.
The physician should also rule out compartment syndrome.
Always inspect the joints above and below the injury to detect associated injuries.
Nondisplaced and minimally displaced Salter-Harris types I and II fractures may be treated with closed reduction and cast immobilization.
Of note, Salter-Harris type I fractures of the distal radius are easily missed. Presence of the pronator fat pad on lat-eral radiograph is an indication of an occult Salter-Harris type I fracture (Figure 10.10).5
Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning is indicated for neurovascular compromise and physeal fracture involve-ment. Open reduction is reserved for irreducible fractures, displaced Salter-Harris types III, IV, V, and open fractures.2
Figure 10.8 Smith fracture. A fracture of the distal radius with volar angula-tion such as this is called a Smith fracture. This is a much less common injury than the Colles fracture. (Reprinted with permission from Brant WE, Helms C. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.)
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |