๐Ÿฆด ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์žฌํ™œ, ์ตœ์‹  ๊ทผ๊ฑฐ ๋ชจ์•„๋ณด๊ธฐ โ€” 2026๋…„ 04์›” 25์ผ

์ž‘์„ฑ์ž jiwoo kwan (Research Curator)ยท
#์ •ํ˜•์™ธ๊ณผ์žฌํ™œ#๊ทผ๊ฑฐ์ค‘์‹ฌ์˜ํ•™#pubmed#๋…ผ๋ฌธ์š”์•ฝ#๊ณจ์ ˆ์žฌํ™œ#๋ผˆํšŒ๋ณต#๊ธฐ๋ŠฅํšŒ๋ณต#์žฌํ™œ์šด๋™

๐Ÿฆด ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์žฌํ™œ ์ตœ์‹  ๋…ผ๋ฌธ 4ํŽธ ์š”์•ฝ

์ถœ์ฒ˜: PubMed / NCBI ยท ๋‚ ์งœ: 2026๋…„ 04์›” 25์ผ
๊ฒ€์ƒ‰์–ด: fracture rehabilitation bone healing functional recovery exercise

๊ณจ์ ˆ ์žฌํ™œ ๊ด€๋ จ ์ตœ์‹  ์ž„์ƒ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ์ •๋ฆฌํ–ˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
์ผ์ƒ์ƒํ™œ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ ํšŒ๋ณต๊ณผ ์žฌํ™œ์— ์‹ค์งˆ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋„์›€์ด ๋˜๋Š” ๊ทผ๊ฑฐ ์ค‘์‹ฌ์˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
์ž์„ธํ•œ ๋‚ด์šฉ์€ ๊ฐ ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์˜ DOI ๋˜๋Š” PubMed ๋งํฌ๋ฅผ ํ™•์ธํ•˜์„ธ์š”.


๐Ÿ“Š ๋…ผ๋ฌธ ํ•œ๋ˆˆ์— ๋น„๊ต

#์ œ๋ชฉ์ œ1์ €์ž์ €๋„์—ฐ๋„๋งํฌ
1Extraarticular hand fractures in adults: a review of new developments.Freeland Alan E ์™ธClinical orthopaedics and relโ€ฆ2006PubMed
2Enhancing Functional Outcomes in Distal End Radius Fracture Rehabilitโ€ฆDeshpande Sagar Subhashโ€ฆJournal of orthopaedic case rโ€ฆ2026DOI
3Effects of a Home-Based Physical Rehabilitation Program on Tibial Bonโ€ฆSuominen Tuuli H ์™ธJBMR plus2019DOI
4A standardized rehabilitation protocol following two-stage surgery foโ€ฆSu Fei ์™ธBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025DOI

[1] Extraarticular hand fractures in adults: a review of new developments.

์ €์ž: Freeland Alan E, Orbay Jorge L
์ €๋„: Clinical orthopaedics and related research 445, 2006
PubMed: 16505726

#### ์š”์•ฝ (ํ•œ๊ตญ์–ด)

๋ฐฐ๊ฒฝ

๋ณธ ๋ณด๊ณ ์„œ๋Š” ์„ฑ์ธ์˜ ๊ด€์ ˆ ์™ธ ์† ๊ณจ์ ˆ(extra-articular hand fractures) ์น˜๋ฃŒ์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ์ตœ์‹  ๋ฐœ์ „ ์‚ฌํ•ญ์„ ๋‹ค๋ฃฌ๋‹ค. ์ตœ๊ทผ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅด๋ฉด, ์ค‘์ˆ˜๊ณจ(metacarpal)์˜ ๋‹จ์ถ•์ด๋‚˜ ๋ฐฐ์ธก ๊ฐํ˜•์„ฑ(dorsal angulation)์ด ์†Œ๋Ÿ‰ ๋ฐœ์ƒํ•  ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์  ์žฅ์• ๋Š” ์ตœ์†Œํ™”๋˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ™•์ธ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ค‘์ˆ˜์ง€๊ด€์ ˆ(metacarpophalangeal joint) ์‹ ์ „ ๊ธฐ์ „(extensor apparatus)์˜ ์ธก๋ถ€๋Œ€(lateral band)์™€ ์‚ฌ์„  ์„ฌ์œ (oblique fibers)๋ฅผ ํŽธ์ธก์œผ๋กœ ์ ˆ์ œํ•˜๋ฉด ๊ทผ์œ„์ง€๊ณจ(proximal phalanx) ๊ณจ์ ˆ ๋ถ€์œ„์˜ ๋…ธ์ถœ์ด ์šฉ์ดํ•ด์ง€๋ฉฐ, ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์  ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์‹œํ‚ฌ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์‚ฌ์„  ๋ฐฉํ–ฅ์˜ ๊ด€์ ˆ ์™ธ ์ค‘์ˆ˜๊ณจ ๋ฐ ์ง€๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด ์†Œํ˜• ๋‚˜์‚ฌ(mini screw)๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ๊ด€์ ˆ ์ ˆ๊ฐœ ๊ณ ์ •์ˆ ์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ๊ฒฝํ”ผ์  ํ•€ ๊ณ ์ •์ˆ (percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation)๊ณผ ๋Œ€๋“ฑํ•œ ์ˆ˜์ค€์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ด€์ ˆ ์™ธ ์‚ฌ์„  ์ค‘์ˆ˜๊ณจ ๋ฐ ์ง€๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ์— ์–‘์ธก ํ”ผ์งˆ์„ ํ†ต๊ณผํ•˜๋Š” ์ž๊ฐ€ ํƒœํ•‘ ์†Œํ˜• ๋‚˜์‚ฌ(bicortical self-tapping mini screw)๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๋ฉด ๋‚˜์‚ฌ ์‚ฝ์ž…์ด ๊ฐ„ํŽธํ•ด์ง€๋ฉฐ, ์ง€์—ฐ ๋‚˜์‚ฌ(lag screw)๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•œ ๊ณ ์ •์ˆ ๊ณผ ์œ ์‚ฌํ•œ ์•ˆ์ •์„ฑ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค. ๊ฒฝํ”ผ์  ๊ณจ์ˆ˜๊ฐ• ๋‚ด ํ•€ ๊ณ ์ •์ˆ (percutaneous intramedullary wire fixation)์€ ๋ถˆ์•ˆ์ •ํ•œ ๊ด€์ ˆ ์™ธ ์‚ฌ์„  ๊ณจ์ ˆ๋ฟ๋งŒ ์•„๋‹ˆ๋ผ ํšก๊ณจ์ ˆ(transverse fracture) ํ˜•ํƒœ์˜ ์ค‘์ˆ˜๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ์—๋„ ์ ์ ˆํ•œ ๊ณ ์ •๋ ฅ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์ž ๊น€ ๊ณจ์ˆ˜๊ฐ• ๋‚ด ์ •(locked intramedullary nails) ๋˜ํ•œ ์œ ์‚ฌํ•œ ์ด์ ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค. ํšก๊ณจ์ ˆ ํ˜•ํƒœ์˜ ๊ด€์ ˆ ์™ธ ์ค‘์ˆ˜๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ์„ ๊ณ ์ •ํ•  ๋•Œ ์†Œํ˜• ๊ธˆ์†ํŒ(mini plates)์„ ๋‹จ์ธก ํ”ผ์งˆ ๋‚˜์‚ฌ(unicortical screw)๋กœ ๊ณ ์ •ํ•˜๋ฉด ์–‘์ธก ํ”ผ์งˆ ๊ณ ์ •์ˆ ๊ณผ ๋Œ€๋“ฑํ•œ ์•ˆ์ •์„ฑ์„ ํ™•๋ณดํ•˜๋ฉด์„œ๋„ ๊ณจ ์†์ƒ์„ ์ค„์ผ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๊ธˆ์†ํŒ ๊ณ ์ •์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ•„์š”ํ•œ ๋ฐ•๋ฆฌ ๊ณผ์ •๊ณผ ํšก๊ณจ์ ˆ์˜ ์ข์€ ์ ‘์ด‰ ๋ฉด์ ์€ ๊ณจ ์œ ํ•ฉ์„ ์ง€์—ฐ์‹œํ‚ค๊ฑฐ๋‚˜ ๋•Œ๋•Œ๋กœ ๋ฐฉํ•ดํ•˜๊ธฐ๋„ ํ•œ๋‹ค. ๊นจ๋—ํ•˜๊ณ  ์•ˆ์ •์ ์ธ ์ƒ์ฒ˜๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ๊ณจ๊ฐ„๋ถ€ ๊ฒฐ์†(diaphyseal defects)์— ์ผ์ฐจ์  ๊ณจ ์ด์‹์ˆ (primary bone grafting)์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜๋ฉด ์น˜๋ฃŒ ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์„ ๋‹จ์ถ•ํ•˜๊ณ  ๊ณผ์ •์„ ๋‹จ์ˆœํ™”ํ•˜๋ฉฐ ํ•ฉ๋ณ‘์ฆ์„ ์ค„์ผ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ •๋ณต ๋˜๋Š” ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ํ›„ ์ฒซ 4์ฃผ ๋™์•ˆ 1.7mm ์ •๋„์˜ ๊ตด๊ณก๊ฑด(flexor tendon) ์›€์ง์ž„๋งŒ์œผ๋กœ๋„ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ๋ถ€์œ„์˜ ๊ฑด ์ฃผ์œ„ ์œ ์ฐฉ(peritendonous adhesions)์„ ์ƒ๋‹นํžˆ ๊ฐ์†Œ์‹œํ‚ฌ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์†๋ชฉ๊ณผ ์†๊ฐ€๋ฝ์˜ ๋™์‹œ ์šด๋™ ๋˜ํ•œ ๊ฑด ์ฃผ์œ„์˜ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์œ ์ฐฉ์„ ์ค„์ด๋Š” ๋ฐ ๋„์›€์ด ๋œ๋‹ค. ํ์‡„์„ฑ ๋‹จ์ˆœ ์ค‘์ˆ˜๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ์—์„œ ์ธ์ ‘ ๊ด€์ ˆ์˜ ์กฐ๊ธฐ ์šด๋™์€ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ •๋ ฌ์— ์•…์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ์ง€ ์•Š์œผ๋ฉด์„œ ์šด๋™ ๋ฒ”์œ„์™€ ๊ทผ๋ ฅ ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ์ด‰์ง„ํ•˜๋ฉฐ, ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์กฐ๊ธฐ ์ง์žฅ ๋ณต๊ท€๋ฅผ ๊ฐ€๋Šฅํ•˜๊ฒŒ ํ•œ๋‹ค.

๊ทผ๊ฑฐ ์ˆ˜์ค€

์ˆ˜์ค€ V (์ „๋ฌธ๊ฐ€ ์˜๊ฒฌ)

์›๋ฌธ Abstract ๋ณด๊ธฐ

UNLABELLED

This report cites new developments in the treatment of extra-articular hand fractures in adults. Recent reports confirm that small amounts of metacarpal shortening or dorsal angulation cause minimal functional impairment. Unilateral excision of the lateral band and oblique fibers of the extensor apparatus of the metacarpophalangeal joint facilitates proximal phalangeal fracture exposure and may improve functional recovery. Results using open mini screw fixation of oblique extra-articular metacarpal and phalangeal fractures may be comparable to those of percutaneous Kirschner wire fixation. Bicortical self-tapping mini screw fixation of extra-articular oblique metacarpal and phalangeal fractures simplifies screw insertion and provides stability comparable to that of fractures fixed with lag screws. Percutaneous intramedullary wire fixation may afford suitable fixation for unstable extra-articular oblique as well as transverse metacarpal fractures. Locked intramedullary nails may offer similar advantages. Unicortical screw fixation of mini plates securing transverse extra-articular metacarpal fractures affords stability comparable to that of bicortical screw fixation while creating less bone damage. The dissection required for plate fixation and the small surface area of transverse fractures delay and occasionally impair bone healing. Primary bone grafting of diaphyseal defects in clean stable wounds may shorten and simplify treatment and decrease morbidity. As little as 1.7 mm of flexor tendon excursion during the first 4 weeks after reduction or repair may substantially diminish peritendonous adhesions at the fracture site. Synchronous wrist and digital exercises may also reduce peritendonous fracture adhesions. Early motion of adjacent joints in closed simple metacarpal fractures expedites recovery of motion and strength without adversely affecting fracture alignment and leads to earlier return to work.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V (expert opinion).


[2] Enhancing Functional Outcomes in Distal End Radius Fracture Rehabilitation.

์ €์ž: Deshpande Sagar Subhash, Ghodke Prerna Pradeep, Kale Sachin Yashwant, Brahmbhatt Heli M, Shah Het M et al.
์ €๋„: Journal of orthopaedic case reports 16(1), 2026
DOI: 10.13107/jocr.2026.v16.i01.6680
PubMed: 41541462

#### ์š”์•ฝ (ํ•œ๊ตญ์–ด)

์„œ๋ก 

๋ฌผ๋ฆฌ์น˜๋ฃŒ์‚ฌ์˜ ๊ด€์ ์—์„œ ์›์œ„ ์š”๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ(Distal End Radius fracture, DER) ํ™˜์ž์˜ ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ๋•๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์€ ํ™˜์ž๊ฐ€ ์ผ์ƒ์ƒํ™œ๋กœ ๋ณต๊ท€ํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐ ๋งค์šฐ ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ๊ณผ์ •์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์€ ์„๊ณ  ๊ณ ์ •(cast)์ด๋‚˜ ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์  ์น˜๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ๋ฐ›์€ ์„ฑ์ธ ํ™˜์ž์—๊ฒŒ ์ฒด๊ณ„์ ์ด๊ณ  ๋‹จ๊ณ„์ ์ธ ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์ด ์–ผ๋งˆ๋‚˜ ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ์ง€ ๊ฐ•์กฐํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ฌผ๋ฆฌ์น˜๋ฃŒ์‚ฌ๋กœ์„œ ์šฐ๋ฆฌ์˜ ์—ญํ• ์€ ์ •ํ˜•์™ธ๊ณผ ์ „๋ฌธ์˜์™€ ๊ธด๋ฐ€ํžˆ ํ˜‘๋ ฅํ•˜์—ฌ ํ™˜์ž์˜ ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ์ด๋„๋Š” ๋ฐ ํ•ต์‹ฌ์ ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

์žฌ๋ฃŒ ๋ฐ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•

๋ชจ๋“  ํ™˜์ž์—๊ฒŒ ์ ์šฉํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ์™„๋ฒฝํ•œ ๋‹จ์ผ ์šด๋™ ๊ณ„ํš์€ ์—†์œผ๋‚˜, ์กฐ๊ธฐ ์šด๋™ ์‹œ์ž‘์ด ํ•ญ์ƒ ๋” ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ด๋ผ๋Š” ์ ์€ ๋ถ„๋ช…ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์šฐ๋ฆฌ์˜ ์ฃผ์š” ๋ชฉํ‘œ๋Š” ํ†ต์ฆ๊ณผ ๋ถ€์ข…์„ ์ค„์ด๊ณ , ์†๋ชฉ๊ณผ ์†์˜ ๊ฐ€๋™ ๋ฒ”์œ„๋ฅผ ๊ฐœ์„ ํ•˜๋ฉฐ, ๊ทผ๋ ฅ์„ ๊ฐ•ํ™”ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ฐ•์ง์ด๋‚˜ ๋ณตํ•ฉ ๋ถ€์œ„ ํ†ต์ฆ ์ฆํ›„๊ตฐ(Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, CRPS)๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์€ ํ”ํ•œ ํ•ฉ๋ณ‘์ฆ์„ ์˜ˆ๋ฐฉํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐ ์ง‘์ค‘ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ํ™˜์ž์˜ ์ผ์ƒ์ƒํ™œ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ ๋Šฅ๋ ฅ ๊ฐœ์„  ์ •๋„๋ฅผ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํŒ”ยท์–ด๊นจยท์† ์žฅ์•  ์ง€์ˆ˜(Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, DASH)์™€ ๋ฏธ์‹œ๊ฐ„ ์† ์„ค๋ฌธ์ง€(Michigan Hand Questionnaire, MHQ)๋ฅผ ๋„๊ตฌ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๊ณ ์ฐฐ

์žฌํ™œ์€ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ณ„๋กœ ์ง„ํ–‰๋ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ๊ณจ์ ˆ ๋ถ€์œ„๋ฅผ ๋ณดํ˜ธํ•˜๋ฉด์„œ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ๊ด€์ ˆ์˜ ์›€์ง์ž„์„ ์œ ์ง€ํ•˜๊ณ  ๋ถ€์ข…์„ ๊ด€๋ฆฌํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐ ์ง‘์ค‘ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ผˆ๊ฐ€ ์น˜์œ ๋จ์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ์†๋ชฉ์˜ ๊ฐ€๋™ ๋ฒ”์œ„๋ฅผ ๋„“ํžˆ๊ณ  ๊ทผ๋ ฅ์„ ๊ฐ•ํ™”ํ•˜๋ฉฐ, ๊ท ํ˜•๊ณผ ํ˜‘์‘๋ ฅ์„ ํ–ฅ์ƒํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ์šด๋™์„ ๋„์ž…ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ๋ถ€๋“œ๋Ÿฌ์šด ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ฐ€๋™์ˆ ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์ €ํ•ญ ์šด๋™๊นŒ์ง€ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๋ฉฐ, ๋•Œ๋กœ๋Š” ์ „๊ธฐ ์ž๊ทน ์น˜๋ฃŒ๋‚˜ ๊ฑฐ์šธ ์น˜๋ฃŒ(mirror therapy)์™€ ๊ฐ™์€ ๊ณ ๊ธ‰ ์น˜๋ฃŒ๋ฒ•์„ ๋ณ‘ํ–‰ํ•˜์—ฌ ํ™˜์ž์˜ ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ๋•์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๊ฒฐ๋ก 

์ˆ˜์ˆ ์„ ๋ฐ›์€ ํ™˜์ž์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ์—๋„ ์žฌํ™œ ์›์น™์€ ์œ ์‚ฌํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ, ์ •ํ˜•์™ธ๊ณผ ์ „๋ฌธ์˜์˜ ์†Œ๊ฒฌ๊ณผ ๊ณ ์ • ๋ฐฉ์‹์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ์šด๋™ ์‹œ๊ธฐ๋ฅผ ์กฐ์ •ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ถ๊ทน์ ์œผ๋กœ ์„ฑ๊ณต์ ์ธ ํšŒ๋ณต์€ ํŒ€์›Œํฌ์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ฌผ๋ฆฌ์น˜๋ฃŒ์‚ฌ์™€ ์ •ํ˜•์™ธ๊ณผ ์ „๋ฌธ์˜๊ฐ€ ํ˜‘๋ ฅํ•˜๊ณ  ํ™˜์ž๊ฐ€ ๊ณ„ํš์„ ์ž˜ ๋”ฐ๋ฅผ ๋•Œ, ๋Œ€๋ถ€๋ถ„์˜ ํ™˜์ž๋Š” ์›์œ„ ์š”๊ณจ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ดํ›„ ์šฐ์ˆ˜ํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์„ ํšŒ๋ณตํ•˜์—ฌ ์ผ์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋ณต๊ท€ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

์›๋ฌธ Abstract ๋ณด๊ธฐ

INTRODUCTION

From a physiotherapist's point of view, helping patients recover from a distal end radius (DER) fracture is a big part of getting them back to their daily lives. This article highlights how important a structured, step-by-step rehabilitation program is for adults, whether their fracture was treated with a cast or with surgery. As physical therapists, our role is crucial in guiding this recovery, working closely with orthopedic surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We understand that there is not one perfect exercise plan for every patient, but starting exercises early is always better. Our main goals are to reduce pain and swelling, improve how much the wrist and hand can move, and build up strength. We also focus on preventing common problems like stiffness or Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. We use tools like the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Michigan Hand Questionnaire scales to see how well patients are improving in their daily activities.

DISCUSSION

The rehabilitation is divided into phases. In the early phase, we focus on protecting the fracture while keeping other joints moving and managing swelling. As the bone heals, we introduce exercises to get the wrist moving more, improve muscle strength, and help with balance and coordination. We use various techniques, from gentle mobilizations to resistance exercises, and sometimes advanced therapies like electrical stimulation or mirror therapy to help patients along.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who have had surgery, the rehab principles are similar, but we adjust the timing of exercises based on the surgeon's advice and the type of fixation. Ultimately, successful recovery is a team effort. When physical therapists and orthopedic surgeons work together, and the patient follows the plan, most people can regain good function and return to their normal activities after a DER fracture.

Copyright: ยฉ Indian Orthopaedic Research Group.


[3] Effects of a Home-Based Physical Rehabilitation Program on Tibial Bone Structure, Density, and Strength After Hip Fracture: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

์ €์ž: Suominen Tuuli H, Edgren Johanna, Salpakoski Anu, Arkela Marja, Kallinen Mauri et al.
์ €๋„: JBMR plus 3(6), 2019
DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10175
PubMed: 31346568

#### ์š”์•ฝ (ํ•œ๊ตญ์–ด)

๋…ผ๋ฌธ ์ œ๋ชฉ: ๊ณ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ํ›„ ๊ฐ€์ • ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์‹ ์ฒด ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์ด ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ์˜ ๊ณจ ๊ตฌ์กฐ, ๋ฐ€๋„ ๋ฐ ๊ฐ•๋„์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์˜ํ–ฅ: ๋ฌด์ž‘์œ„ ๋Œ€์กฐ ์‹œํ—˜์˜ ์ด์ฐจ ๋ถ„์„

๋ฐฐ๊ฒฝ: ์ฒด์ค‘ ๋ถ€ํ•˜ ์‹ ์ฒด ํ™œ๋™์€ ๊ณ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ํ›„ ๋ฐœ์ƒํ•˜๋Š” ๊ณจ ์†์‹ค์„ ๊ฐ์†Œ์‹œํ‚ค๊ฑฐ๋‚˜ ์˜ˆ๋ฐฉํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ณ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ณจ์ ˆ์„ ๊ฒช์€ ๋…ธ์ธ ํ™˜์ž๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ๊ฐ€์ • ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์‹ ์ฒด ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์ด ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ(tibial bone) ํŠน์„ฑ์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.

๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•: ๊ณ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์„ ๋ฐ›์€ ๋‚จ๋…€ ํ™˜์ž(ํ‰๊ท  ์—ฐ๋ น 80์„ธ, ์—ฌ์„ฑ 78%)๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ์ธ๊ตฌ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์ž„์ƒ ํ‘œ๋ณธ์„ ๊ตฌ์„ฑํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๊ณจ์ ˆ ํ›„ ํ‰๊ท  10์ฃผ ์‹œ์ ์— ์ค‘์žฌ๊ตฐ(n=40)๊ณผ ํ‘œ์ค€ ์น˜๋ฃŒ ๋Œ€์กฐ๊ตฐ(n=41)์œผ๋กœ ๋ฌด์ž‘์œ„ ๋ฐฐ์ •ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ค‘์žฌ๊ตฐ์€ 12๊ฐœ์›” ๋™์•ˆ ๊ฐ€์ • ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์žฌํ™œ ์ค‘์žฌ์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์—ฌ๊ธฐ์—๋Š” ํ™˜๊ฒฝ์  ์œ„ํ—˜ ์š”์†Œ ํ‰๊ฐ€ ๋ฐ ๊ฐœ์„ , ์•ˆ์ „ํ•œ ๋ณดํ–‰ ์ง€๋„, ๋น„์•ฝ๋ฌผ์  ํ†ต์ฆ ๊ด€๋ฆฌ, ์‹ ์ฒด ํ™œ๋™ ๋™๊ธฐ ๋ถ€์—ฌ ์ƒ๋‹ด, ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ํ•˜์ง€ ๊ทผ๋ ฅ ๊ฐ•ํ™” ์šด๋™, ๊ท ํ˜• ํ›ˆ๋ จ, ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์  ์šด๋™ ๋ฐ ์ŠคํŠธ๋ ˆ์นญ์œผ๋กœ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ๋œ ์ ์ง„์  ์ฒด์ค‘ ๋ถ€ํ•˜ ๊ฐ€์ • ์šด๋™ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์ด ํฌํ•จ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ชจ๋“  ์ฐธ๊ฐ€์ž๋Š” ํ‘œ์ค€ ์น˜๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ๋ฐ›์•˜๋‹ค. ๋ง๋‹จ ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ(์›์œ„๋‹จํŒ ์ƒ๋ถ€ 5% ์ง€์ )์˜ ์••๋ฐ• ๊ณจ๊ฐ•๋„ ์ง€์ˆ˜(compressive bone strength index, BSI; gยฒ/cmโด), ์ „์ฒด ์šฉ์  ๊ณจ๋ฐ€๋„(total volumetric BMD, vBMDTOT; mg/cmยณ), ์ „์ฒด ๋ฉด์ (total area, CSATOT; mmยฒ)๊ณผ ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ ์ค‘๊ฐ„๋ถ€(55% ์ง€์ )์˜ ๊ฐ•๋„-๋ณ€ํ˜• ์ง€์ˆ˜(strength-strain index, SSI; mmยณ), ํ”ผ์งˆ๊ณจ ์šฉ์  ๊ณจ๋ฐ€๋„(cortical vBMD, vBMDCO; mg/cmยณ), ํ”ผ์งˆ๊ณจ ๋ฉด์  ๋Œ€ ์ „์ฒด ๋ฉด์  ๋น„์œจ(CSACO/CSATOT)์„ ๋ง์ดˆ ์ •๋Ÿ‰์  ์ปดํ“จํ„ฐ ๋‹จ์ธต์ดฌ์˜(pQCT)์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ๊ธฐ์ € ์‹œ์ ๊ณผ 3, 6, 12๊ฐœ์›” ์‹œ์ ์— ์–‘์ธก ๋‹ค๋ฆฌ ๋ชจ๋‘ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.

๊ฒฐ๊ณผ: ์ค‘์žฌ๋Š” ๋ง๋‹จ ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ์ด๋‚˜ ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ ์ค‘๊ฐ„๋ถ€์˜ ๊ณจ ํŠน์„ฑ์— ์–ด๋– ํ•œ ์˜ํ–ฅ(์ง‘๋‹จร—์‹œ๊ฐ„ ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ)๋„ ๋ฏธ์น˜์ง€ ๋ชปํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ง๋‹จ ๋ถ€์œ„์—์„œ๋Š” ์–‘์ธก ๋‹ค๋ฆฌ์˜ BSI, ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ธก์˜ vBMDTOT, ๋น„๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ธก์˜ CSATOT๊ฐ€ ๋‘ ์ง‘๋‹จ ๋ชจ๋‘์—์„œ ์‹œ๊ฐ„์ด ์ง€๋‚จ์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ 0.7%์—์„œ 3.1%๊นŒ์ง€ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๊ฐ์†Œํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค(12๊ฐœ์›”, p<0.05). ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ ์ค‘๊ฐ„๋ถ€์—์„œ๋Š” ์–‘์ธก ๋‹ค๋ฆฌ์˜ CSACO/CSATOT์™€ SSI, ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ธก ๋‹ค๋ฆฌ์˜ vBMDCO๊ฐ€ ๋‘ ์ง‘๋‹จ ๋ชจ๋‘์—์„œ 1.1%์—์„œ 1.9%๊นŒ์ง€ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๊ฐ์†Œํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค(12๊ฐœ์›”, p<0.05). ๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ธก๊ณผ ๋น„๊ณจ์ ˆ ์ธก ๋ชจ๋‘์—์„œ ๊ฒฝ๊ณจ์˜ ํ•ด๋ฉด๊ณจ(trabecular bone) ๋ฐ ํ”ผ์งˆ๊ณจ(cortical bone) ํŠน์„ฑ์€ ์ถ”์  ๊ด€์ฐฐ ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„ ๋‚ด๋‚ด ์•…ํ™”๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค.

๊ฒฐ๋ก : ์ด๋™์„ฑ ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ๋ชฉ์ ์œผ๋กœ ํ•œ ๊ฐ€์ • ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์‹ ์ฒด ์žฌํ™œ ์ค‘์žฌ๋Š” ๊ณ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ํ›„ ๋…ธ์ธ์˜ ๊ณจ ์•…ํ™”๋ฅผ ์˜ˆ๋ฐฉํ•˜์ง€ ๋ชปํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.

์›๋ฌธ Abstract ๋ณด๊ธฐ

Weight-bearing physical activity may decrease or prevent bone deterioration after hip fracture. This study investigated the effects of a home-based physical rehabilitation program on tibial bone traits in older hip fracture patients. A population-based clinical sample of men and women operated for hip fracture (mean age 80 years, 78% women) was randomly assigned into an intervention (nโ€‰=โ€‰40) and a standard care control group (nโ€‰=โ€‰41) on average 10 weeks postfracture. The intervention group participated in a 12-month home-based rehabilitation intervention, including evaluation and modification of environmental hazards, guidance for safe walking, nonpharmacological pain management, motivational physical activity counseling, and a progressive, weight-bearing home exercise program comprising strengthening exercises for the lower legs, balance training, functional exercises, and stretching. All participants received standard care. Distal tibia (5% proximal to the distal end plate) compressive bone strength index (BSI; g2/cm4), total volumetric BMD (vBMDTOT; mg/cm3), and total area (CSATOT; mm2), as well as midtibia (55%) strength-strain index (SSI; mm3), cortical vBMD (vBMDCO; mg/cm3), and ratio of cortical to total area (CSACO/CSATOT) were assessed in both legs by pQCT at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. The intervention had no effect (groupโ€‰ร—โ€‰time) on either the distal or midtibial bone traits. At the distal site, BSI of both legs, vBMDTOT of the fractured side, and CSATOT of the nonfractured side decreased significantly over time in both groups 0.7% to 3.1% (12 months, pโ€‰<โ€‰0.05). At the midshaft site, CSACO/CSATOT and SSI of both legs, and vBMDCO of the fractured leg, decreased significantly over time in both groups 1.1% to 1.9% (12 months, pโ€‰<โ€‰0.05). Trabecular and cortical bone traits of the tibia on the fractured and the nonfractured side deteriorated throughout follow-up. The home-based physical rehabilitation intervention aimed at promoting mobility recovery was unable to prevent bone deterioration in older people after hip fracture. ยฉ 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.


[4] A standardized rehabilitation protocol following two-stage surgery for nonunion of lateral humeral condyle fracture with cubitus valgus in children: functional and radiographic outcomes.

์ €์ž: Su Fei, Dang Yuze, Li Min, Qu Jining, Wang Bo et al.
์ €๋„: BMC musculoskeletal disorders 26(1), 2025
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-09247-x
PubMed: 41152838

#### ์š”์•ฝ (ํ•œ๊ตญ์–ด)

๋ชฉ์ 

์†Œ์•„์—์„œ ๋ฐœ์ƒํ•˜๋Š” ์ฃผ๊ด€์ ˆ ์™ธ๊ณผ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ๋ถˆ์œ ํ•ฉ(nonunion of lateral humeral condyle fracture)๊ณผ ๋™๋ฐ˜๋œ ์™ธ๋ฐ˜์ฃผ(cubitus valgus) ๋ณ€ํ˜•์„ ์น˜๋ฃŒํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์€ ๋งค์šฐ ๊นŒ๋‹ค๋กญ๋‹ค. ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์  ์ „๋žต์ด ์กด์žฌํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ, ์ตœ์ ์˜ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์  ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์–ป๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ฒด๊ณ„์ ์ด๊ณ  ํ‘œ์ค€ํ™”๋œ ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœํ† ์ฝœ์˜ ์—ญํ• ์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด์„œ๋Š” ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ๋ถ€์กฑํ•œ ์‹ค์ •์ด๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ํ›„ํ–ฅ์  ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์†Œ์•„์˜ ์™ธ๋ฐ˜์ฃผ๋ฅผ ๋™๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ์™ธ๊ณผ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ๋ถˆ์œ ํ•ฉ ํ™˜์ž๋ฅผ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ, ํ‘œ์ค€ํ™”๋˜๊ณ  ๋ฉด๋ฐ€ํžˆ ๊ด€๋ฆฌ๋˜๋Š” ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœํ† ์ฝœ์„ ๋ณ‘ํ–‰ํ•œ 2๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ์ „๋žต(1๋‹จ๊ณ„: ์ž๊ฐ€ ๊ณจ์ด์‹์„ ํ†ตํ•œ ์›์œ„์น˜ ๊ณ ์ •, 2๋‹จ๊ณ„: ๊ต์ • ์ ˆ๊ณจ์ˆ )์˜ ์ž„์ƒ์  ๋ฐ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์  ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.

๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•

2016๋…„ 1์›”๋ถ€ํ„ฐ 2020๋…„ 3์›”๊นŒ์ง€ ์‹œ์•ˆ ๊ตํ†ต๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ํ™ํ›„์ด ๋ณ‘์›(Honghui Hospital, Xiโ€™an Jiaotong University)์—์„œ ์™ธ๋ฐ˜์ฃผ ๋ณ€ํ˜•์„ ๋™๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ์ƒ์™„๊ณจ ์™ธ๊ณผ ๋ถˆ์œ ํ•ฉ์œผ๋กœ 2๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์„ ๋ฐ›์€ ์†Œ์•„ ํ™˜์ž 9๋ช…์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ›„ํ–ฅ์  ๋ถ„์„์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. 1๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ๋ถˆ์œ ํ•ฉ ๋ถ€์œ„์˜ ๋ณ€์—ฐ์ ˆ์ œ์ˆ (debridement), ์ž๊ฐ€ ์žฅ๊ณจ ์ด์‹(autologous iliac bone grafting), ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ์œ ๊ด€ ์••๋ฐ• ๋‚˜์‚ฌ(cannulated compression screws)๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์›์œ„์น˜ ๊ณ ์ •์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ณจ์œ ํ•ฉ์ด ํ™•์ธ๋˜๊ณ  ํŒ”๊ฟˆ์น˜ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์ด ํšŒ๋ณต๋œ ํ›„, 2๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ์™ธ๋ฐ˜์ฃผ ๋ณ€ํ˜•์„ ๊ต์ •ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ƒ์™„๊ณจ ๊ณผ์ƒ๋ถ€ ๋‚ด์ธก ํ์‡„ํ˜• ์๊ธฐ ์ ˆ๊ณจ์ˆ (supracondylar medial closing wedge osteotomy)์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ํ•ต์‹ฌ์€ ๊ฐ ๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ดํ›„ ์‹œํ–‰๋œ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ณ„ ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœํ† ์ฝœ์ด๋‹ค. 1๋‹จ๊ณ„ ํ›„์—๋Š” ๊ณ ์ •(immobilization)์— ์ด์–ด ์ ์ง„์ ์ธ ๋Šฅ๋™ ๋ณด์กฐ ๋ฐ ๋Šฅ๋™ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ฐ€๋™ ๋ฒ”์œ„(range-of-motion, ROM) ์šด๋™์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๊ณ , 2๋‹จ๊ณ„ ํ›„์—๋Š” ์ ์ง„์  ์ €ํ•ญ ์šด๋™(progressive resistance training)์„ ์‹ค์‹œํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์น˜๋ฃŒ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ์ „๊ณผ ์ตœ์ข… ์ถ”์‹œ ์‹œ์ ์˜ ํŒ”๊ฟˆ์น˜ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ฐ€๋™ ๋ฒ”์œ„, ์šด๋ฐ˜๊ฐ(carrying angle), ๋ฉ”์ด์š” ํŒ”๊ฟˆ์น˜ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ ์ ์ˆ˜(Mayo Elbow Performance Score, MEPS)๋ฅผ ๊ธฐ๋กํ•˜๊ณ  ๋น„๊ตํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.

๊ฒฐ๊ณผ

๋ชจ๋“  ํ™˜์ž๋Š” ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ํ›„ ํ‰๊ท  45.5๊ฐœ์›”(๋ฒ”์œ„: 30~66๊ฐœ์›”) ๋™์•ˆ ์ถ”์‹œ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. 1๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ํ›„ ์™ธ๊ณผ ๊ณจ์ ˆ ๋ถˆ์œ ํ•ฉ์ด ๊ณจ์œ ํ•ฉ์— ๋„๋‹ฌํ•˜๊ธฐ๊นŒ์ง€ ๊ฑธ๋ฆฐ ํ‰๊ท  ์‹œ๊ฐ„์€ 81.3์ผ(๋ฒ”์œ„: 55~120์ผ)์ด์—ˆ๋‹ค. 2๋‹จ๊ณ„ ๊ต์ • ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์—์„œ ๋ชจ๋“  ์ ˆ๊ณจ ๋ถ€์œ„๋Š” ํ‰๊ท  51.1์ผ(๋ฒ”์œ„: 45~60์ผ) ๋งŒ์— ์œ ํ•ฉ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ํŒ”๊ฟˆ์น˜ ๊ด€์ ˆ ๊ฐ€๋™ ๋ฒ”์œ„๋Š” ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ์ „ ํ‰๊ท  128.0ยฐ ยฑ 4.6ยฐ์—์„œ ์ตœ์ข… ์ถ”์‹œ ์‹œ 138.5ยฐ ยฑ 5.4ยฐ๋กœ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ํ–ฅ์ƒ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค(P < 0.001). ๊ฑด์ธก์˜ ํ‰๊ท  ์šด๋ฐ˜๊ฐ์€ 5.5ยฐ(๋ฒ”์œ„: 3ยฐ~8ยฐ)์˜€๋‹ค. ํ™˜์ธก์˜ ์šด๋ฐ˜๊ฐ์€ ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ์ „ 31.8ยฐ ยฑ 4.7ยฐ(๋ฒ”์œ„: 25ยฐ~42ยฐ)์—์„œ ์ตœ์ข… ์ถ”์‹œ ์‹œ 4.0ยฐ ยฑ 2.2ยฐ(๋ฒ”์œ„: 1ยฐ~8ยฐ)๋กœ ์œ ์˜ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๊ฐœ์„ ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค(P < 0.05). MEPS๋Š” ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ์ „ ํ‰๊ท  58.5 ยฑ 6.5์ (๋ณดํ†ต 4๋ช…, ๋ถˆ๋Ÿ‰ 5๋ช…)์—์„œ ์ตœ์ข… ์ถ”์‹œ ์‹œ 96.2 ยฑ 3.4์ (์šฐ์ˆ˜ 7๋ช…, ์–‘ํ˜ธ 2๋ช…)์œผ๋กœ ํ–ฅ์ƒ๋˜์–ด(P < 0.05), ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ ํšŒ๋ณต์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ฌดํ˜ˆ์„ฑ ๊ดด์‚ฌ(avascular necrosis)๋Š” ๋ฐœ์ƒํ•˜์ง€ ์•Š์•˜์œผ๋ฉฐ, 1๋ช…์˜ ํ™˜์ž(11.1%)์—๊ฒŒ์„œ ์ผ์‹œ์ ์ธ ๊ธˆ์† ๋‚ด๊ณ ์ •๋ฌผ ์ž๊ทน ์ฆ์ƒ์ด ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค.

๊ฒฐ๋ก 

ํ‘œ์ค€ํ™”๋œ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ณ„ ์žฌํ™œ ํ”„๋กœํ† ์ฝœ์„ ํ†ตํ•ฉํ•œ 2๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์  ์ ‘๊ทผ๋ฒ•์€ ์™ธ๋ฐ˜์ฃผ๋ฅผ ๋™๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ์†Œ์•„ ์ƒ์™„๊ณจ ์™ธ๊ณผ ๋ถˆ์œ ํ•ฉ์„ ๊ด€๋ฆฌํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐ ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ธ ์ „๋žต์ด๋ฉฐ, ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์  ๊ฐœ์„ ๊ณผ ์žฌํ˜„ ๊ฐ€๋Šฅํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ๋‹ค.

์›๋ฌธ Abstract ๋ณด๊ธฐ

OBJECTIVE

Treating nonunion of the lateral humeral condyle with cubitus valgus deformity in children is challenging. While various surgical strategies exist, the role of a structured, standardized rehabilitation protocol in achieving optimal functional outcomes remains underexplored. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical and functional results of a two-stage surgical strategy (primary in situ fixation with bone grafting followed by secondary corrective osteotomy) coupled with a standardized, closely monitored rehabilitation protocol for pediatric lateral humeral condyle nonunion with cubitus valgus.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on nine pediatric patients with humeral lateral condyle nonunion combined with cubitus valgus deformity who were treated at Honghui Hospital, Xiโ€™an Jiaotong University, from January 2016 to March 2020. All underwent the two-stage surgery. In stage I, we performed debridement of the nonunion site, autologous iliac bone grafting, and in situ fixation using cannulated compression screws. Once bone union was achieved and elbow joint function had recovered, we performed corrective supracondylar medial closing wedge osteotomy to address the cubitus valgus deformity in stage II. The key focus of this study is the detailed, phase-specific rehabilitation protocol implemented after each stage: immobilization followed by graduated active-assisted and active range-of-motion exercises post-Stage I, and progressive resistance training post-Stage II. Elbow range of motion (ROM), carrying angle, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were recorded and compared between the preoperative period and the final follow-up to evaluate treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up postoperatively, with a mean duration of 45.5 months (range: 30โ€“66 months). The mean time to union after the first-stage surgery for nonunion of lateral condyle fractures was 81.3 days (range: 55โ€“120 days). All osteotomy sites in the second-stage corrective surgery achieved union, with an mean healing time of 51.1 days (range: 45โ€“60 days). The elbow ROM improved significantly from a preoperative mean of 128.0ยฐ ยฑ 4.6ยฐ to 138.5ยฐ ยฑ 5.4ยฐ at the final follow-up (Pโ€‰<โ€‰0.001). The mean carrying angle of the unaffected side was 5.5ยฐ (range: 3ยฐโ€“8ยฐ). On the affected side, the carrying angle significantly improved from 31.8ยฐ ยฑ 4.7ยฐ (range: 25ยฐโ€“42ยฐ) preoperatively to 4.0ยฐ ยฑ 2.2ยฐ (range: 1ยฐโ€“8ยฐ) at final follow-up (Pโ€‰<โ€‰0.05). The MEPS improved from a preoperative mean of 58.5โ€‰ยฑโ€‰6.5 (4 fair, 5 poor) to 96.2โ€‰ยฑโ€‰3.4 (7 excellent, 2 good) at final follow-up (Pโ€‰<โ€‰0.05), indicating significant functional recovery. No avascular necrosis occurred. Transient hardware irritation occurred in one patient (11.1%).

CONCLUSION

The two-stage surgical approach, when integrated with a standardized, phased rehabilitation protocol, is an effective strategy for managing pediatric lateral humeral condyle nonunion with cubitus valgus, yielding significant functional improvements and reproducible outcomes.



๐Ÿ“š ์ฐธ๊ณ  ๋ฌธํ—Œ (References)

  1. Freeland Alan E, Orbay Jorge L. Extraarticular hand fractures in adults: a review of new developments. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 445, 2006. ยท PubMed: 16505726
  2. Deshpande Sagar Subhash, Ghodke Prerna Pradeep, Kale Sachin Yashwant, Brahmbhatt Heli M, Shah Het M et al.. Enhancing Functional Outcomes in Distal End Radius Fracture Rehabilitation. Journal of orthopaedic case reports 16(1), 2026. ยท DOI: 10.13107/jocr.2026.v16.i01.6680 ยท PubMed: 41541462
  3. Suominen Tuuli H, Edgren Johanna, Salpakoski Anu, Arkela Marja, Kallinen Mauri et al.. Effects of a Home-Based Physical Rehabilitation Program on Tibial Bone Structure, Density, and Strength After Hip Fracture: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial. JBMR plus 3(6), 2019. ยท DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10175 ยท PubMed: 31346568
  4. Su Fei, Dang Yuze, Li Min, Qu Jining, Wang Bo et al.. A standardized rehabilitation protocol following two-stage surgery for nonunion of lateral humeral condyle fracture with cubitus valgus in children: functional and radiographic outcomes. BMC musculoskeletal disorders 26(1), 2025. ยท DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-09247-x ยท PubMed: 41152838
๋ณธ ํฌ์ŠคํŠธ๋Š” PubMed ๊ณต๊ฐœ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋ฅผ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ์ž๋™ ์ƒ์„ฑ๋˜์—ˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์ž„์ƒ ์ ์šฉ ์ „ ๋ฐ˜๋“œ์‹œ ์›๋ฌธ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•˜๊ณ  ์ „๋ฌธ๊ฐ€์™€ ์ƒ๋‹ดํ•˜์„ธ์š”.

์ถœ์ฒ˜