Skip to main content

Anti-sliding plate technique for coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus



The purpose of this study is to discuss the surgical strategy, technical feasibility, and clinical efficacy of coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus using the anti-sliding plate technique.


Fifty-two patients (35 males and 17 females) were treated with the anti-sliding plate technique in our hospital from January 2012 to January 2017. The average age of the patients was 40.4 years. They were classified according to the Dubberley classification system and treated with the anti-sliding plate technique. The long-term functional scores represented by the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and complications were evaluated.


Fractures were classified as follows: 11 type-IA, 5 type-IB, 16 type-IIA, 4 type-IIB, 13 type-IIIA, and 3 type-IIIB according to the Dubberley classification system. All patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation by the extensile lateral approach and completed a clinical and radiographic follow-up (average, 17.6 months). The average Mayo elbow performance score was 90.6 points, with 36 excellent, 11 good, and 5 fair results. The average range of movement of the elbow joint was 3° (0–15°) for extension and 136° (90–150°) for flexion.


The anti-sliding plate technique follows basic AO principles and neutralizes the shearing force combined with lag screws and/or Kirschner wires after the anatomic reduction of the fracture. It allows for the stable internal fixation of the fracture, which is critical for early mobilization and a good functional outcome.

Level of evidence

Level IV, Case Series, Treatment Study


Coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus affect the articular surfaces of the capitellum and/or trochlea. This type of fracture is rare, causing intra-articular damage of the distal humerus and accounting for less than 1% of elbow fractures [1, 2]. This type of fracture is also likely to be misdiagnosed. However, the complexity of these fractures in recent times has been better appreciated by digital imaging and computed tomographic scans [3]. Treatment strategies for these injuries have evolved over time from conservative management to open surgery. Currently, open reduction and internal fixation are the preferred methods for treating this type of injury [4].

Given the rarity of coronal shear fractures, it has been difficult to formulate a universally accepted method of fixation [5]. Various treatment methods have been proposed, but no final conclusion has been drawn [6]. Several authors have recommended fragment excision, but this approach can result in pain, instability, and loss of motion [7, 8]. Kirschner wires and bio-absorbable screws have also been used with less favorable results, as they fail to provide sufficient fixation strength [9]. Therefore, most reports in the literature recommend fixation with cancellous lag screws or Herbert’s screws placed in the anterior to posterior direction [7, 10, 11]. However, the placement of the screws can damage a considerable amount of articular cartilage, which cannot resist the shear force on the coronal plane. Furthermore, the fracture fragments provide limited access for screw placement, while trying to achieve stable fixation. In this article, therefore, we discuss a technique for the internal fixation of coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus using the anti-sliding plate combined with lag screws and/or K-wires. We have used this technique to treat 52 patients from January 2012 to January 2017. Here, we aim to report on the demographic characteristics, as well as the clinical and radiographic outcomes, with a minimum follow-up time of 1 year.

Materials and methods


This was a retrospective study of coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus. Fifty-two patients were diagnosed and managed operatively for coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus at our institution from January 2012 to January 2017. They were subsequently followed clinically and radiographically with subjective and objective outcome measures. No patient was excluded. The study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Hong-Hui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University College of Medicine, Shaanxi Province, China. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study (Table 1).

Table 1 Main characteristics and Follow-up results of the study population

Details on the injury type, specifically the results of the clinical examination and radiographic tests, were recorded for each patient. The coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus were classified according to the AO/OTA classification system [12] and Dubberley classification system [13]. Radiographs were obtained immediately after the injury (anteroposterior and lateral views), and CT scans were reviewed by three experienced orthopedic surgeons. Fractures were classified based on routine radiographs, and the fracture type was confirmed with intraoperative findings.

All patients were followed up every month until the sixth postoperative month, and then annually until the most recent follow-up. The follow-up evaluation included clinical and radiographic assessments. The clinical functional assessment included the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) [14], the range of flexion and extension of the elbow joint, the rotation of the forearm, and the stability of the elbow joint. The radiographic assessment included an evaluation of the fracture reduction (anatomic, near anatomic [less than 2 mm displaced], or displaced [greater than 2 mm]) [15], fracture union, osteonecrosis, heterotopic ossification (classified by the Brooker system and applied to the elbow) [16], and post-traumatic osteoarthritis according to the Broberg and Morrey classification system [17].

Surgical technique

All cases were operated on under general anesthesia in the supine position with a bump underneath the scapula, and the arm brought across the chest. A tourniquet was used in all cases. The extensile lateral approach to the elbow was used, centered over the lateral epicondyle. The interval between the anconeus and the extensor carpi ulnaris was identified distally, and the common extensor origin and the extensor carpi radialis brevis were elevated anteriorly, which made it possible to reach and elevate the anterior capsule of the elbow joint. Thus, the capitellum and trochlea of the humerus were exposed directly. The front part of the entire articular surface was exposed with a Hoffman retractor on the medial side of the distal humerus at a 30–45° flexion position of the elbow joint. Firstly, all the fracture fragments were reduced to their normal anatomical positions with K-wires and/or headless screws from the anterior to the posterior position. Secondly, the remodeled T type microplate was placed beneath the articular surface of the capitellum as the anti-sliding plate to neutralize the shear forces across the fracture site. If necessary, we placed another microplate at the posterolateral side of the distal humerus when the posterior condyle was comminuted. Thereafter, we examined the movement of the elbow joint to ensure that there was no abnormal movement and mechanical obstruction caused by the protrusion of the implant. The accuracy of reduction and hardware placement was confirmed radiographically. The wound was irrigated, and the joint capsule was closed over a drain. The common extensor tendon was repaired to the soft tissue cuff on the lateral supracondylar ridge, and the layers of subcutaneous tissue and skin were closed. After surgery, the patient was placed into an elbow-adjustable brace in a 90° flexion position. Rehabilitation was based on the injury type and recovery, with range motion exercises starting no later than 2 weeks postoperatively (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Surgical procedures: extensile lateral approach (a), dissect and expose the fracture site (b), the fragment is comminuted and dissociative sometimes (c), “on-table” technique was used for this type of fractures (d), temporary fixation with Kirschner wires after the fracture anatomical reduction (e, f), observe the quantity of fracture reduction with intraoperative fluoroscopy (g, h), countersunk screws were used to fixate from the anterior side to the posterior side of articular surface (i, j), mini-plate were adhered beneath the articular surface of the capitellum for the anti-sliding fixation, without the of the obstruction of humeroradial joint (k, l), use two mini-plate for some Dubberley B type fractures, one is placed on anterolateral side and another is placed on posterolateral side (m, n), intraoperative fluoroscopy is used to determine the fracture reduction again and the placement of implants (o, p)

Statistical analysis

To evaluate the data, the median and interquartile range were used. The sign test was used to determine if the occurrence of coronal shear fractures was significantly more common in females than males, and if nondominant extremities were more often involved than dominant extremities. Scores were compared by the Dubberley fracture classification system and epidemiologic data using the Mann–Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.


There were more females (35/52 or 67.3%) than males (17/52 or 32.7%) in this study. The average age was 40.4 years (range, 23–62). All fractures were closed. Each fracture was an isolated injury with no associated neurovascular injury. All injuries were the result of trauma (due to a fall), and the non-dominant side was affected 69.2% (36/52) of the time. All patients sustained the fracture after landing on their outstretched upper extremity. The most common type of injury was the fall from the ground (31/52 or 59.6%), followed by the fall from the stairs (9/52 or 17.3%), from the bike (8/52 or 15.4%), and from the roof (4/52 or 7.7%). Based on the AO/OTA classification system [12], 16 (30.8%) cases were type B3.1 and 36 (69.2%) cases were type B3.3. According to the Dubberley classification system [13], there were 11 (21.2%) patients with IA fractures, 5 (9.6%) patients with IB fractures, 16 (30.8%) patients with IIA fractures, 4 (7.7%) patients with IIB fractures, 13 (25.0%) patients with IIIA fractures, and 3 (5.8%) patients with IIIB fractures. The mean time from injury to surgery was 5.8 days (range, 2–9 days).

All patients received follow-up, lasting for 12–24 months (average, 17.6 months). The radiographic review of images revealed an anatomic reduction in 44 (84.6%) cases and a near-anatomic (less than 2 mm displaced) reduction in eight (15.4%) cases. All fractures united by 1-year follow-up with an average of 13.6 weeks (range, 12–16 weeks). There were three cases (5.8%) of Broberg and Morrey grade 1 degenerative arthritis, two cases (3.8%) of Brooker grade 1 heterotopic ossification, and three cases (5.8%) of hardware loosening or breakage without secondary fracture displacement. Seventeen (32.7%) patients opted to have the internal implants removed after healing of the fracture, and five out of 17 patients experienced discomfort of the elbow joint.

The average range of movement of the elbow joint at the last follow-up was 3° (0–15°) for extension and 136° (90–150°) for flexion, with a mean loss of flexion and extension of 9° and 3°, respectively, compared with the contralateral side. No substantial loss of forearm rotation was noted in any of the patients. The average MEPS score was 90.6 (range, 60–100), with 36 excellent results, 11 good results, and five fair results (excellent/good rate: 90.4%). However, the average MEPI score of seven (13.5%) patients with posterior condylar comminution was 71.4, which was significantly lower than the other 45 (86.5%) patients (average MEPI score was 93.6, P < 0.05) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Female, 62 years old, preoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of capitellum and trochlea fractures caused by falling injury from stairs (a); preoperative CT showing the capitellum and trochlea fractures and intact posterior condyle (b); X-ray radiographs (c, d) and CT scans (e, f) 2 days after operation showing the reduction and fixation of the capitellum and trochlea , as well as the good restoration of articular surface of the distal end; functional appearance 1 month after operation showing satisfactory elbow function (g, h)


The clinical treatment of coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus is an active area of research for several reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to compare clinical efficacies between different treatment methods because of the low morbidity rate. Secondly, morbidity presents a bimodal distribution. Fractures in young patients are often caused by high-energy injuries, which are often combined with associated injuries of the elbow. By contrast, fractures in elderly patients are often caused by low-energy injuries, which can lead to postoperative failures of reduction and fixation. Thirdly, it is difficult to preserve and fix all small pieces of the articular surface when the fractures are comminuted. If all small pieces of the articular surface are not retained, the morphology of the articular surface of the humeroradial joint will be altered, thereby resulting in pain, instability, loss of motion, and traumatic arthritis in some patients [7, 8, 18,19,20].

Treatment options have evolved from fragment excision and closed reduction/immobilization to ORIF in order to achieve stable anatomic reduction, restore articular congruity, and initiate early motion [21,22,23]. However, various debates have ensued on which surgical fixation technique is most appropriate, which is crucial to the final outcome [24,25,26]. Presently, Kirschner wires, cancellous screws, Herbert screws, and Acutrak Mini screws are commonly utilized for rigid fixation using the fracture compression technique [27, 28]. Ashwood et al. contended that the maintenance of rigid fixation after fracture reduction, and the stability of the elbow joint are very important [29]. They further stated that the small fragments should be used for reduction and internal fixation. However, Sano et al. considered that if the screws were placed in the small fragments, it would be difficult for the screw threads to traverse the fracture line, resulting in failed fracture compression [30]. Therefore, this may lead to functional disabilities of the elbow joint, because patients cannot rehabilitate elbow joints at an early stage without rigid fixation, especially for patients without access to standard rehabilitation.

Therefore, the anti-sliding plate technique, which is based on the use of Kirschner wires and screws, was utilized for all 52 patients in this study. Our technique has several advantages over previous methods of fixation. Firstly, it can maintain the integrity and continuity of the comminuted fracture of the articular surface by fixation with Kirschner wires and allow for interfragmentary compression with lag screws. Secondly, fixation with a microplate has an effect similar to that of the anti-sliding technique, and it can ensure coverage of the comminuted fragments to provide more stability for small fragments. Previous studies have reported that the greatest force transmission across the radiohumeral articulation occurs between 0 and 30° of elbow flexion [31, 32]. The microplate can also provide an anti-sliding effect for the entire lateral condyle to neutralize the shearing forces that would otherwise contribute to the loss of fixation and to maintain rigid fixation of coronal shear fractures, thereby allowing for the initiation of early range-of-motion exercises.

Jupiter et al. contended that the function of the elbow joint after a coronal shear fracture of the distal humerus is related to the recuperative degree of the normal anatomic structures [33]. All 52 patients were treated with open reduction, with anatomic reduction in 44 cases and near-anatomic reduction in eight cases. We preserved the small fragments as much as possible and strived for the anatomical reduction of these fragments. Lag screws were used to fix the fracture fragments, with temporary fixation with K-wires. Lastly, we maintained the integrity of the articular surface and placed a microplate beneath the articular surface of the humeral capitellum for anti-sliding fixation. Thereafter, intraoperative fluoroscopy with a C-arm was performed to ensure anatomical reduction and rigid fixation of the fracture. Thus, patients were allowed to carry out active and passive activities involving the elbow joint at an early stage.

In summary, both X-rays and CT scans are needed to arrive at a correct diagnosis and classification. The Dubberley classification system, one of the most commonly used systems, focuses on the seriousness of the posterior condyle and the prognosis. The anti-sliding plate was used to obtain rigid fixation on the basis of K-wires and screws after the anatomical reduction of the fracture by the extensile lateral approach. The patients must exercise at the early stage to achieve satisfactory unction of the elbow joint.

The limitations of our study include its retrospective design and the relatively short-term follow-up. This surgical method can be applied to most clinical cases, although the findings should be confirmed in further clinical and biomechanical studies with larger sample sizes.

Availability of data and materials

We state that data will not be shared because all raw data were used to prepare the figures included in the article.


  1. 1.

    Trinh TQ, Harris JD, Kolovich GP, Griesser MJ, Schickendantz MS, Jones GL. Operative management of capitellar fractures: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21(11):1613–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Yari SS, Bowers NL, Craig MA, Reichel LM. Management of distal humeral coronal shear fractures. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(5):405–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Singh AP, Singh AP. Coronal shear fractures of distal humerus: diagnostic and treatment protocols. World J Orthop. 2015;6(11):867–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lee JJ, Lawton JN. Coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(11):2412–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mighell M, Virani NA, Shannon R, Echols EL Jr, Badman BL, Keating CJ. Large coronal shear fractures of the capitellum and trochlea treated with headless compression screws. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(1):38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Vaishya R, Vijay V, Jha GK, Agarwal AK. Open reduction and internal fixation of capitellar fracture through anterolateral approach with headless double-threaded compression screws: a series of 16 patients. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(7):1182–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mehdian H, Mckee MD. Fractures of capitellum and trochlea. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31(1):115–27

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rizzo M, Nunley JA. Fractures of the elbow’s lateral column radial head and capitellum. Hand Clin. 2002;18(1):21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kramer M, Pamnani A, Strauch RJ. Internal fixation of a capitellum fracture using a biodegradable screw. Orthopedics. 2002;25(25):765–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    McKee MD, Jupiter JB. Trauma to the adult elbow and fractures of the distal humerus. In: Browner BD, et al., editors. Skeletal trauma: fractures, dislocations, ligamentous injuries. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2002. p. 1469–72.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tanwar YS, Kharbanda Y, Jaiswal A, Birla V, Pandit R. Retrospective analysis of open reduction and internal fixation of coronal plane fractures of the capitellum and trochlea using the anterolateral approach. SICOT-J. 2018;4(4):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, Decoster TA, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: orthopaedic trauma association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 Suppl):1–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dubberley JH, Faber KJ, Macdermid JC, Patterson SD, King GJ. Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of capitellar and trochlear fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(1):46–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Morrey BF, An KN. Functional evaluation of the elbow. In: Morrey BF, editor. The elbow and its disorders. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2000. p. 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Puloski S, Kemp K, Sheps D, Hildebrand K, Donaghy J. Closed reduction and early mobilization in fractures of the humeral capitellum. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(1):62–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Jr RL. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55(8):1629–32

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Broberg MA, Morrey BF. Results of delayed excision of the radial head after fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(5):669–74

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bexkens R, Kim VDE, Ogink PT, Cja VB, Mpj VDB, Eygendaal D. Clinical outcome after arthroscopic debridement and microfracture for osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(10):2312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ljungquist KL, Beran MC, Awan H. Effects of surgical approach on functional outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation of intra-articular distal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21(1):126–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cutbush K, Andrews S, Siddiqui N, Brown LM, Ross M. Capitellar fractures-is open reduction and internal fixation necessary? J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(1):50–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Singer KM, Roy SP. Osteochondrosis of the humeral capitellum. Am J Sports Med. 1984;12(12):351–60

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ochner RS, Bloom H, Palumbo RC, Coyle MP. Closed reduction of coronal fractures of the capitellum. J Trauma. 1996;40(2):199

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Widhalm HK, Seemann R, Wagner FT, Sarahrudi K, Wolf H, Hajdu S, et al. Clinical outcome and osteoarthritic changes after surgical treatment of isolated capitulum humeri fractures with a minimum follow-up of five years. Int Orthop. 2016;40(12):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sen MK, Sama N, Helfet DL. Open reduction and internal fixation of coronal fractures of the capitellum. J Hand Surg. 2007;32(9):1462–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Murthy PG, Vuillermin C, Naqvi MN, Waters PM, Bae DS. Capitellar fractures in children and adolescents: classification and early results of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(15):1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Carroll MJ, Athwal GS, King GJ, Faber KJ. Capitellar and trochlear fractures. Hand Clin. 2015;31(4):615–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Gonçalves LBJ, Ring DC. Fractures of the humeral trochlea: case presentations and review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(6):e151–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ravishankar MR, Kumar MN, Raut R. Choice of surgical approach for capitellar fractures based on pathoanatomy of fractures: outcomes of surgical management. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;27(2):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ashwood N, Verma M, Hamlet M, Garlapati A, Fogg Q. Transarticular shear fractures of the distal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(1):46–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sano S, Rokkaku TS, Tokunaga S, Abe Y, Moriya H. Herbert screw fixation of capitellar fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005;14(3):307–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Morrey BF, An KN, Stormont TJ. Force transmission through the radial head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(2):250–6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    van Riet RP, Van GF, Baumfeld JA, Neale PG, Morrey BF, O'Driscoll SW, et al. The effect of the orientation of the radial head on the kinematics of the ulnohumeral joint and force transmission through the radiocapitellar joint. Clin Biomech. 2006;21(6):554–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Jupiter JB, Mehne DK. Fractures of the distal humerus. Orthopedics. 1992;31(1):103–13

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors wish to thank the medical staff of the Surgical Department at Honghui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University where all of the surgeries were performed.


This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information




ZS, YJZ, and KZ designed the study. QW, TM, HZX, and ZL collected the data. ZS, CW, and NY performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the results. ZS and KZ drafted the manuscript. The final manuscript was approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kun Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Committee of Honghui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All patients signed informed consent forms prior to the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, Z., Wang, Q., Ma, T. et al. Anti-sliding plate technique for coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Surg Res 15, 18 (2020).

Download citation


  • Fracture
  • Distal humerus
  • Elbow joint
  • Internal fixation
  • Technique