A novel approach to distal femur: a minimally invasive technique for supracondylar and intercondylar fracture

Table 1 Demographic data of patients undergoing the lambda-incision approach

Patient no	Sex	Age	Fracture type	Concomitant Injury	ITB release	Time of surgery (min)	Time to union	Range of motion	Sander’s functional score
1	M	38	A3		+	130	22 m	0–90	Good
2	M	47	A3		+	190	Loss	0–130	Excellent
3	M	67	C2		−	240	16 m	0–140	Excellent
4	F	54	C2		−	155	12 m	0–140	Excellent
5	F	66	C2	Distal radius fracture	−	180	11 m	0–140	Excellent
6	M	22	C2		−	180	13 m	0–110	Good
7	M	20	C2	Ipsilateral tibial plateau fracture	−	390	15 m	10–100	Good
8	M	70	C1		−	90	Loss	0–130	Excellent
9	F	61	C2	1st metacarpal fracture	+	165	12 m	0–110	Excellent
10	M	34	C3		+	165	Loss	0–130	Excellent
11	M	58	A3		−	150	12 m	0–100	Good
12	M	40	C3		+	160	7 m	10–100	Excellent
13	F	70	C2		−	150	Loss	0–100	Good
14	F	71	C2	Humeral head fracture	−	195	Loss	0–100	Good
15	F	63	C1		−	135	17 m	0–100	Fair
16	M	46	C2		+	180	Loss	10–90	Fair
17	M	33	C2	Bilateral humeral neck fracture 5th metacarpal neck fracture 2nd metatarsal neck fracture	−	420	Loss	0–130	Fair
18	M	63	C2	2nd distal phalangeal near amputation	−	300	Loss	Loss	–
19	F	59	A3		−	120	Loss	Loss	–
20	F	81	C2		+	135	Loss	0–130	Excellent
Mean		52.5 y/o				192	13.7 m	1.5–115

ISSN: 1749-799X