Comparison of two fixation techniques of olecranon osteotomy after reconstruction of intra-articular distal humerus fractures

Table 1 Comparison of demographic and clinical variables of both groups, n (%)/mean ± SD

No.	Demographic and clinical variables	Group A	Group B	P value
1	Gender
	Male	12 (75)	13 (81.25)	0.10
	Female	4 (25)	3 (18.75)
2	Side
	Right	10 (62.5)	11 (68.75)	0.09
	Left	6 (37.5)	5 (31.25)
3	Fracture classification
	AO 13-C1	5 (31.25)	5 (31.25)	0.08
	AO 13-C2	7 (43.75)	6 (37.5)
	AO 13-C3	4 (25)	5 (31.25)
4	Aetiology of fracture
	RTA	12 (75)	13 (81.25)	0.20
	Fall	4 (25)	3 (18.75)
5	Age, years	34 ± 5.5	34 ± 6.2	0.30
6	Diabetes mellitus	1 (6.25)	2 (12.5)	0.10
7	Hypertension	1 (6.25)	3 (18.75)	0.20
8	Ischemic heart disease	1 (6.25)	1 (6.25)	0.50
9	Follow up months	16 ± 1.2	15.4 ± 2	0.32
10	6.5 mm intramedullary screw length, mm	95.4 ± 3	95 ± 2.1	0.12
11	MEPS	92.3 ± 4.1	78.1 ± 12.1	0.03
12	Quick DASH score	24.5 ± 2.1	56.2 ± 4.8	0.001
13	Distal humerus fracture union	16 (100)	16 (100)	-
14	Olecranon osteotomy union	16 (100)	16 (100)	-
15	Complications
	Superficial infection	3 (18.75)	7 (43.75)	0.01
	Discomfort due to prominent implant	-	9 (56.25)	0.004
	Osteotomy implant removal	-	7 (43.75)	0.002

AO: Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthesefragen; RTA: Road traffic accident; MEPS: Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Quick DASH: Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand.