| Image Quiz |
| Elbow Pain and Swelling in a Three-Month-Old Infant After a Fall (continued) |
| Answer: This injury should raise the suspicion of child abuse. When appropriate, a series of radiographs of the entire skeleton should be made and the child and family should be evaluated by child protective services. |
| For larger view, click on image |

Fig. 1 |

Fig. 3 |
|
| Discussion |
| Fracture-separation of the distal humeral physis is a rare injury compared
with other elbow injuries seen in children. It has been postulated that one
reason for the rarity of this injury is that it is frequently missed or misdiagnosed1. |
| Determining the relationship of the olecranon process to the medial and
lateral humeral epicondyles during the physical examination may help to differentiate
between elbow dislocation and fracture-separation of the distal humeral physis;
however, painful examination and swelling in the area may make palpation
of these landmarks difficult. A "muffled" crepitus (in contrast to the distinct
osseous crepitus heard between two osseous fragments) may be appreciated
during movement of the elbow as the cartilaginous ends of the fracture move
against one another2. |
| Radiographic diagnosis in neonates and young infants can be challenging
because of the lack of visible ossification centers. The anatomic alignment
of the proximal aspect of the radius and ulna with respect to one another
and their posteromedial displacement relative to the humeral metaphysis radiographically
are suggestive of fracture-separation of the distal humeral physis. The diagnosis
is easier in older children when the ossification center in the capitellum
becomes visible (age one to nine months). With ossification of the capitellum,
normal radiocapitellar alignment is observed in physeal fracture-separation
at the distal humerus. Elbow dislocations are rare in infants due to the
strength of the ligaments compared with bone, and when they occur they are
most often posterolateral3. Supracondylar fractures of the distal
aspect of the humerus are also rare in infants and can be differentiated
from distal humeral physeal fracture-separations by observing the entire
fracture line in the supracondylar segment proximal to the physis1. |
| When the diagnosis is still in doubt despite comparative plain-film imaging
of the injured and contralateral elbows, other imaging modalities may be
useful. Ultrasound with sedation has been demonstrated to aid in the diagnosis
of elbow injuries in children, including fracture-separation of the distal
humeral physis, and has the advantages of being noninvasive, available in
real-time, and relatively inexpensive4. Arthrography and examination
under anesthesia has been shown to be helpful in demonstrating separation
and displacement of the physis. Additionally, a more complete physical examination
can take place during this procedure, but general anesthesia must be administered5.
Magnetic resonance imaging has proven useful in making the diagnosis of a
fracture-separation of the distal humeral physis in neonates and young infants.
Disadvantages to magnetic resonance imaging include cost and the need for
sedation, and possibly general anesthesia, although a recent report of successful
magnetic resonance imaging of a sleeping infant held by his mother has been
reported6. Radionuclide bone scintigraphy is less useful in evaluating
physeal injuries in infants because of the intense uptake and activity seen
in this region in normal physes due to the rapid growth at these sites5. |
| A current treatment for distal physeal fracture-separation of the humerus
is closed reduction with percutaneous pin fixation, which allows for immediate
evaluation of the carrying angle7,8. Early recognition and treatment
are important because, when treatment is delayed and callus formation has
begun, the treatment then should consist solely of immobilization of the
elbow. If deformity results, it can be corrected subsequently with osteotomy.
Complications following distal humeral physeal fracture-separation include
cubitus varus deformity, which is more likely to develop in children who
are less than two years of age1,7,8. |
| In a series of sixteen patients with fracture-separation of the distal humeral
physis, child abuse was documented or suspected in six of sixteen patients,
all of whom were less than two years of age1. Unlike older children,
who frequently fall on outstretched hands, it is unlikely for infants to
sustain an elbow injury in falls typically seen in this age group. Such injuries
in infants and children should prompt consideration of a skeletal survey
to rule out occult injuries and should also prompt an investigation by child
protective services unless the injury was witnessed by other reliable persons. |
| In a more recent retrospective review of skull and long-bone fractures in
seventy-four children who were less than one year of age at the time of presentation
to an emergency department, it was determined that the possibility of abuse
is underestimated at the initial presentation for approximately 25% of patients.
The authors recommended admitting all of these children to the hospital as
well as initiating an evaluation by child protective services9.
If there is a high index of suspicion for abuse, imaging of the brain for
occult head injury may be considered because a funduscopic examination is
not as useful in evaluating retinal hemorrhage10. A
recent review article by Kocher and Kasser provides an excellent summary
of the orthopaedic aspects of child abuse11. |
| *The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments
or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from
a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to
pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational
institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the
authors are affiliated or associated. |
| References |
1. DeLee JC, Wilkins KE, Rogers LF, Rockwood CA. Fracture-separation of the distal humeral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:46-51.
2. Poland J. A practical treatise on traumatic separation of the epiphyses. London: Smith, Elder, and Co.; 1898.
3. Beaty JH, Kasser JR. The elbow: physeal fractures. In: Beaty JH, Kasser JR, editors. Rockwood and Wilkins' fractures in children. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. p 625-62.
4. Davidson RS, Markowitz RI, Dormans J, Drummond DS. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the elbow in infants and young children after suspected trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1804-13.
5. Merten DF, Kirks DR, Ruderman RJ. Occult humeral epiphyseal fracture in battered infants. Pediatr Radiol. 1981;10:151-4.
6. Sawant MR, Narayanan S, O'Neill K, Hudson I. Distal humeral epiphysis fracture separation in neonates—diagnosis using MRI scan. Injury. 2002;33:179-81.
7. de Jager LT, Hoffman EB. Fracture-separation of the distal humeral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:143-6.
8. Oh CW, Park BC, Ihn JC, Kyung HS. Fracture separation of the distal humeral epiphysis in children younger than three years old. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20:173-6.
9. Banaszkiewicz PA, Scotland TR, Myerscough EJ. Fractures in children younger than age 1 year: importance of collaboration with child protection services. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002;22:740-4.
10. Rubin DM, Christian CW, Bilaniuk LT, Zazyczny KA, Durbin DR. Occult head injury in high-risk abused children. Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 Pt 1):1382-6.
11. Kocher MS, Kasser JR. Orthopaedic aspects of child abuse. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8;10-20. |