Place of injuries of elbow joint in the structure of primary permanent disability among Ukrainian population

L.Y.  Naumenko; T.O.  Zub; A.O. Mametyev

doi:10.26641/2307-0404.2022.3.266002

Authors

L.Y. Naumenko Dnipro State Medical University, V. Vernadsky str., 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-8263
T.O. Zub Dnipro State Medical University, V. Vernadsky str., 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8404-0437
A.O. Mametyev Dnipro State Medical University, V. Vernadsky str., 9, Dnipro, 49044, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6667-6394

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26641/2307-0404.2022.3.266002

Keywords:

elbow joint, consequences of injuries, primary permanent disability in Ukraine, population study

Abstract

Despite the rapid development of orthopedics consequences of elbow injuries have a significant proportion of unsatisfactory treatment results until now. Owing to comprehend the sources of disability doctors could determine drawbacks of treatment and regulate rehabilitation program for patients with elbow injuries better. The purpose of the study was to investigate the structure of primary permanent disability due to elbow injuries among the Ukrainian population. The study was made on annual reports of Regional centers of medical and social expertise and the Center of medical and social expertise of the city of Kiev for 2018. During the reporting period a disability group due to upper extremity injuries was established totally for 1 211 patients in age over 18 years, among them 195 people had consequences of elbow traumas. That caused an intensive prevalence rate of 6.22 cases per 1 million of adults. Male patients (70.8%) and patients in working age (94.9%) prevailed among people with disability. 10.8% of patients were determined as people with disability without a revision period after the primary examination on medical and social expertise commission. The causes of primary permanent disability were domestic injuries (90.8%), occupational injuries (5.0%), injures during military service and battle injuries (2.1%) and disability since the childhood (2.1%). Structure according to disability groups showed the next distribution: 90.3% – the 3rd group, 9.2% – the 2nd group and 0.5% – the 1st group. Consequences of elbow injuries which led to primary permanent disability were caused by bone fractures (61.5%), elbow contractures and elbow ankyloses (19.0%), injuries of an ulnar nerve (8.7%), traumatic amputation at the elbow level (6.2%), forearm dislocations (3.1%), open wounds of elbow (1.0%), elbow ligaments ruptures (0.5%). Patients registered as disabled with a revision period during the first examination on commission had sufficient rehabilitation potential for restoration of elbow joint function and one of the upper limb in total.

References

Loskutov OE, Domanskyi AN, Zherdev II, Lushnya SL. [Analysis of the results of surgical treatment for distal humerus fractures]. Trauma. 2019;20(1):23-27. Russian.

doi: https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.1.20.2019.158665

Ekşioğlu M. Prediction equations for permanent impairment of the upper extremity due to the loss of range of motion. Work. 2016;53:409-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152144

Hong CC, Nashi N, Hey HW, Chee YH, Murphy D. Clinically relevant heterotopic ossification after elbow fracture surgery: A risk factors study. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2015;101(2):209-213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.10.021

Oosterwijk AM, Nieuwenhuis MK, Schouten HJ, van der Schans CP, Mouton LJ. Rating scales for shoulder and elbow range of motion impairment: Call for a func¬tional approach. PLOS ONE 2018;13(8):e0200710. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200710

Riffenburgh RH, Gillen DL. Statistics in Medicine: Fourth Edition. Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier; 2020. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128153284/statistics-in-medicine

Perepelychnaya RY, editor. [The main indices of permanent disability and activity of medical and social expertise commissions in Ukraine during 2018: informational and analytic handbook]. Dnipro: Accent PP; 2019. Ukrainian. Available from: http://ndimspi.com/arkhyv/

Naumenko LYu, Ipatov AV, Zub TO, Mametyev AO. [State of disability due to upper extremity traumas in Ukraine in 2017]. Trauma. 2018;19(4):9-14. Ukrainian. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.4.19.2018.142100

Naumenko L, Borisova I, Berezovskyi V, Fe-senko H, Zub T, Chub D. [Criteria of vital activity lesions as a methodological basis for determining disability]. Medicni perspektivi. 2017;23(2 Pt 1):32-36. Ukrainian. doi: https://doi.org/10.26641/2307-0404.2018.2(part1).129512

Woo A, Bakri K, Moran SL. Management of ulnar nerve injuries. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2015;40(1):173-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.04.038

Merad M, de Montalivet É, Touillet A, Martinet N, Roby-Brami A, Jarrassé N. Can we achieve intuitive prosthetic elbow control based on healthy upper limb motor strategies? Front. Neurorobot. 2018;12:1. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00001

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Promise of Assistive Technology to En¬hance Activity and Work Participation. Upper-Extremity Prostheses. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2017;(Pt 4).

doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24740

Pierrie SN, Gaston RG, Loeffler BJ. Current Concepts in Upper-Extremity Amputation. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2018;43(7):657-67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.053

Mellema JJ, Lindenhovius AL, Jupiter JB. The posttraumatic stiff elbow: an update. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(2):190-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9336-9