Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose:

This analysis seeks to clarify the clinical efficacy of each treatment modality and inform evidence-based decision-making in the management of this common yet complex injury.

Methods:

Results:

A total of 65 studies published between 1982 and 2026 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of fracture union rate following surgical treatment was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95%–98%). Conservative immobilization resulted in a markedly lower union rate of 46% (95% CI: 20%–74%). The overall complication rate following surgical treatment was 21% (95% CI: 16%–27%), compared to 36% (95% CI: 13%–63%) for conservative immobilization.

Conclusion:

Among surgical options, screw fixation was associated with high union rate and the lowest complication profile, with statistically distinct pooled estimates supporting its reliability in achieving stable healing and early mobilization. We believe that the pooled estimates from our study will be valuable in guiding clinical decision-making and will help assess the risk of potential outcomes and complications in patients with medial epicondyle fractures.

Significance of Study:

This study provides high-quality pooled evidence comparing surgical and conservative management of medial epicondyle fractures, helping clinicians make more informed, evidence-based decisions by clarifying differences in union rates, functional outcomes, and complication risks.

Keywords

Medial epicondyle humeral fractures elbow injuries treatment outcome complications

Introduction

Fractures of the medial epicondyle are among the most frequent elbow injuries in the pediatric and adolescent population, accounting for 11%–20% of all elbow fractures.^1,2 These injuries occur most frequently in active children aged 9–14 years, often resulting from valgus stress applied to the elbow during a fall on the outstretched arm or following avulsion by the common flexor–pronator mass.³ Due to their proximity to key anatomical structures, including the medial collateral ligament complex and the ulnar nerve, these fractures carry important functional implications for elbow stability and neurovascular integrity.⁴

The optimal management of medial epicondylar fractures remains controversial. While nonoperative treatment with immobilization has long been the standard of care for minimally displaced injuries,^1,5 growing concern regarding nonunion, valgus instability, chronic pain, and ulnar neuropathy has led many authors to advocate for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).³ ORIF, most commonly performed using screws or K-wires, enables anatomical reduction and early mobilization; however, it is associated with complications such as hardware irritation, infection, and postoperative stiffness.¹ Importantly, despite decades of experience, the indications for operative intervention remain inconsistently defined, with decision-making often guided by fracture displacement thresholds, elbow stability under valgus stress, and the presence of ulnar nerve symptoms rather than uniform criteria.¹

Given the heterogeneity of existing literature and the lack of consensus regarding the relative benefits and risks of operative versus conservative management, a quantitative synthesis of current evidence is warranted. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze clinical outcomes of primary medial epicondylar fracture management, comparing surgical and nonoperative approaches with respect to fracture union, range of motion (ROM), functional recovery, and complication rates. This analysis seeks to clarify the clinical efficacy of each treatment modality and inform evidence-based decision-making in the management of this common yet complex injury.

Methods

The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number CRD420251020265, titled “Management of the Medial Epicondylar Fractures – A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis”).⁶

Search strategy

A comprehensive systematic search was performed across major medical databases, including Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CINAHL Ultimate, to identify studies addressing the outcomes of treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures. The search was conducted in three stages: (1) Initially, all the aforementioned databases were searched twice using the following search terms: (medial*) AND (epicondy*) AND (fracture*). (2) To reduce potential selection bias and ensure that no relevant publications were omitted, additional searches limited to titles and abstracts were carried out in each database. (3) In the final stage, the reference lists of all previously identified papers were manually screened for further eligible studies. The search terms were adapted for each phase and database. The complete search strategy is presented in Supplemental Table 1. At this stage, no restrictions regarding publication date, language, article type, or text availability were applied. The systematic search ended in May 2026 and included studies published up to April 2026. All databases were systematically searched by two authors working independently to ensure accuracy and consistency (MiB and IJ). During the study, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.⁷

Study selection

The inclusion criteria covered randomized controlled trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case series that reported extractable numerical data on clinical outcomes of treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures. Exclusion criteria comprised case reports, case series including fewer than three participants, conference abstracts, review articles, letters to the editor, studies published in languages other than English, studies presenting incomplete, imprecise, or irrelevant data, and studies with critical risk-of-bias. Any discrepancies in study selection were resolved through discussion among the authors. The process of study inclusion is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram presenting process of collecting data included in this meta-analysis.

Data extraction

Data extraction from all eligible studies was independently performed by two authors (MiB and JaW). The qualitative variables collected included publication year, geographical region, details of the treatment approach, and other relevant characteristics of the study populations. Quantitative data were also extracted, with particular emphasis on sample size, patient age, fracture union rate, ROM, outcome measures assessed with standardized scales, and complication rates. Any inconsistencies identified by the two reviewers were addressed by contacting the original study authors when possible or resolved through discussion and consensus with the remaining co-authors.

Risk-of-bias assessment

Risk-of-bias assessment of the included studies was performed by two independent authors (MiB and PO) using the ROBINS-I V2 and RoB2 tools (Supplemental Table 2).^8,9 Any discrepancies in assessment were resolved through discussion and consensus with the remaining co-authors. Most studies demonstrated a moderate overall risk-of-bias, primarily related to confounding factors, while other domains generally showed low risk. Only a few studies were rated as having a serious risk-of-bias. Two studies were secondarily excluded due to a critical risk-of-bias. In addition, potential publication bias within each analyzed category was examined using Funnel plots, Doi plots, and the LFK index.¹⁰ Owing to journal space limitations, the full set of Forest, Funnel, and Doi plots generated for each analysis is available upon request from the corresponding author. The obtained risk-of-bias ratings were incorporated into the interpretation of individual study results.

Statistical analysis

To perform the meta-analyses, STATISTICA version 14.1 software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA), MetaXL version 5.3 software (EpiGear International Pty Ltd., Wilston, QLD, Australia), and Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 4.0 software (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA) were used. All analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using both Cochran’s Q test and the I² statistic.¹¹ A p-value of <0.05 and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to identify statistically significant differences between groups. When confidence intervals overlapped, the differences were considered statistically insignificant.

Results

Search results

A total of 65 studies published between 1982 and 2026 were included in the meta-analysis.^{1,3,5,12–73} The studies collectively analyzed over 2000 pediatric and adolescent patients treated for primary medial epicondyle fractures across 5 continents, with the highest activity observed in North America (USA) and Asia (China, South Korea). The mean age of the patients ranged from 7 to 15 years, and males predominated across nearly all cohorts. ORIF using K-wires or screws was the most frequently applied surgical technique, while immobilization represented the conservative approach. Detailed characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

Study (first author, year)	Region	Number of patients (F:M)	Average age	Treatment methods
Perry, 2026	United Kingdom, Europe	168 (81:87)	11.8 ± 2.1	ORIF: Mixed
Grahn, 2025	Finland, Europe	37 (19:18)	12.2 ± 2.3	ORIF: Mixed
Ji, 2025	China, Asia	31 (9:22)	12.0	ORIF: K-wires/screws
Zheng, 2025	USA, North America	23 (0:23)	13.8	ORIF: Mixed
Zeng, 2025	China, Asia	30 (10:20)	11.9 (R: 8–15)	ORIF: Screws
Jones, 2025	USA, North America	150 (62:88)/52 (21:31)	12.8/12.5	ORIF: Unspecified/conservative treatment
Siebert, 2024	USA, North America	107 (56:51)/44 (19:25)	11 ± 3/13 ± 2	ORIF: Screws
Liu, 2024	China, Asia	124 (42:82)	11.85	ORIF: Mixed
Ziegman, 2023	USA, North America	117 (59:58)	11.11 ± 2.56	ORIF: Unspecified
Zhuang, 2023	China, Asia	99 (48:51)/40 (16:24)	9.2 (R: 7–14)/10.6 (R: 5–14)	ORIF: K-wires
Zeng, 2023	China, Asia	26 (7:19)	11.6 ± 2.5	ORIF: Mixed
Stelmach, 2023	Poland, Europe	112 (39:73)	11.6 ± 3.4/11.9 ± 2.6	ORIF: K-wires
Jeong, 2022	South Korea, Asia	37 (9:28)	11.7 ± 2.8	ORIF: Mixed
Baldini, 2022	Italy, Europe	15 (8:7)/12 (7:5)	10.2 ± 1.2/11 ± 1.18	ORIF: K-wires/screws
Kassai, 2022	Hungary, Europe	24	12.3 (R: 8–16)	ORIF: Pins
Cain, 2021	USA, North America	29 (0:29)	14.7 (R: 12.9–16.5)	ORIF: Screws
Rivera, 2021	USA, North America	103/104	—	ORIF: Unspecified/conservative treatment
Grahn, 2021	Finland, Europe	40 (20:20)/41 (17:24)	12 (R: 7–16)/11 (R: 4–16)	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Patel, 2021	USA, North America	39	12.2 ± 2.2	ORIF: Screws
Scherer, 2021	Germany, Europe	79/17 (55:41)	9.8/7.1	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Baghdadi, 2021	Israel, Asia	204 (88:116)	11.7 (R: 5–17)	ORIF: Mixed
Axibal, 2020	USA, North America	14 (1:13)/28 (2:26)	13.3 ± 2.2/13.3 ± 2.7	ORIF: Unspecified/conservative treatment
Nielsen, 2020	USA, North America	35 (12:23)	12 ± 2.2	ORIF: Mixed
Li, 2020	China, Asia	30 (12:18)/35 (14:21)	11.3 ± 1.7/11.6 ± 1.8	ORIF: Screws
Ergin, 2020	Republic of Türkiye, Asia	22 (6:16)/20 (5:15)	9 (R: 6–14)/15 (R: 10–17)	ORIF: K-wires/screws
García-Mata, 2020	Spain, Europe	34 (14:20)	8.9 ± 2.81	Conservative treatment
Kim, 2020	South Korea, Asia	56 (18:38)/21 (9:12)	11.6 (R: 7–15)/10.8 (R: 7–15)	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Su, 2020	China, Asia	15 (4:11)/17 (4:13)	12.6 (R: 8–14)/11.8 (R: 7–15)	ORIF: K-wires/pins
Vuillermin, 2019	USA, North America	32 (11:21)	13.2 ± 2.6	ORIF: Mixed
Axibal, 2019	USA, North America	22 (7:15)/22 (6:16)	12.3 ± 2.0/11.4 ± 3.4	ORIF: Unspecified/conservative treatment
Patel, 2019	USA, North America	137 (52:85)	12.2 ± 2.3	ORIF: Screws
Canavese, 2017	Italy, Europe	38 (21:17)/28 (14:14)	11.3 ± 2.8/11.1 ± 2.4	ORIF: Mixed
Pace, 2017	USA, North America	17 (7:9)	13.4 (R: 8.3–16.8)	ORIF: Screws
Rigal, 2016	France, Europe	21/19 (17:23)	10.2 ± 1.68	ORIF: Mitek^®/ K-wires
Stepanovich, 2016	USA, North America	6/6	12 (R: 11–13)/13 (R: 8–16)	ORIF: Screws/conservative treatment
Lim, 2015	Singapore, Asia	34 (14:20)	11.0 (R: 2.62)	Conservative treatment
Biggers, 2015	USA, North America	18/13	12 (R: 6–15)	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Tarallo, 2014	Italy, Europe	13 (5:8)	13 (R: 9–16)	ORIF: Screws
Joshi, 2014	Nepal, Asia	20 (7:13)	10.8 ± 2.3	ORIF: Mixed
Dodds, 2014	USA, North America	11 (6:5)	12 (R: 9–15)	ORIF: Screws
Lawrence, 2013	USA, North America	14 (5:9)/6 (2:4)	12.8 ± 2.6/11.5 ± 2.4	ORIF: Screws/conservative treatment
Park, 2012	South Korea, Asia	22/10 (14:17)	11 (R: 6.5–15)/12 (R: 9–17)	ORIF: K-wires/screws
Glotzbecker, 2012	USA, North America	27 (11:16)	11.2 (R: 5.1–16.9)	ORIF: Screws
Harada, 2012	Japan, Asia	55	11.0 (R: 9–13)/11.2 (R: 10–13)	Conservative treatment
Osbahr, 2010	USA, North America	3 (0:3)/5 (0:5)	13.7 (R: 13–15)/12.6 (R: 11–15)	ORIF: Screws/conservative treatment
Louahem, 2009	France, Europe	139	11.9 (R: 6.3–15).	ORIF: Mixed
Ip, 2007	Hong Kong, Asia	20 (8:12)/4 (1:3)	13 (R: 9–17)/12 (R: 10–13)	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Ristanis, 2007	Greece, Europe	3	7.5 (R: 7–8)	Conservative treatment
Haxhija, 2006	Austria, Europe	25 (10:15)	12 (R: 7–15)	ORIF: K-wires
Bulut, 2005	Republic of Türkiye, Asia	7/3 (1:9)	12 (R: 1.5– 15)	ORIF: K-wires/conservative treatment
Lee, 2005	Taiwan, Asia	25 (7:18)	13.7 (R: 7.5–17.4)	ORIF: Mixed
Farsetti, 2001	Italy, Europe	17/6/19 (15:27)	12 (R: 8–15)	ORIF: Mixed/excision/conservative treatment
Pimpalnerkar, 1998	United Kingdom, Europe	14 (2:12)	9.7 (R: 6–16)	ORIF: Mixed
Case, 1997	USA, North America	8 (1:7)	11 (R: 9–15)	ORIF: Screws
Partio, 1996	Finland, Europe	18 (8:10)	19.2 (R: 8–40)	ORIF: Mixed
Duun, 1994	Denmark, Europe	33 (17:16)	12 (R: 7–15)	ORIF: Mixed
Skak, 1994	Denmark, Europe	21 (11:10)/3 (1:2)	10.1 (R: 4.5–14)/9.8 (R: 5.5–14)	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Nyska, 1992	Israel, Asia	8 (0:8)	14.4 (R: 13–15)	Conservative treatment
Fowles, 1990	Tunisia, Africa	9/19	—	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Wilson, 1988	Scotland, Europe	23 (8:15)/20 (9:11)	12.0 (R: 7.3–16.1)/11.8 (R: 7–16.2)	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Dias, 1987	United Kingdom, Europe	20 (14:6)	13 (R: 9–16)	Conservative treatment
Hines, 1987	USA, North America	31	12.7 (R: 7–16)	ORIF: Mixed
Josefsson, 1986	Sweden, Europe	51 (12:39)	11 (R: 7–17)	Conservative treatment
Van Niekerk, 1985	Netherlands, Europe	11/9	10	ORIF: Mixed/conservative treatment
Papavasiliou, 1982	Greece, Europe	63/28	R: 5–17	ORIF: Mixed

R: range; ORIF: open reduction internal fixation.

Fracture union rate

The pooled fracture union rate following surgical treatment was 97% (95% CI: 95%–98%), confirming the high reliability of operative management in achieving bony healing (Figure 2). Among fixation methods, K-wire fixation and screw fixation demonstrated comparable union rates of 95% (95% CI: 87%–99% and 92%–98%, respectively), with no clinically meaningful difference between techniques. In contrast, conservative immobilization resulted in a markedly lower union rate of 46% (95% CI: 20%–74%). These results suggest that surgical fixation offers a clear clinical advantage in achieving solid bone healing, potentially reducing the risk of delayed union or nonunion in growing patients. Detailed results are presented in Table 2.

Figure 2.

Forrest plot regarding the fracture complete union rate union rate after treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures in the overall surgical group. The overall surgical group comprises all procedures involving open reduction and internal fixation, regardless of the specific technique applied. The authors classified both bony and fibrous unions into the union group, while nonunions and pseudoarthrosis were classified into the nonunion group.

Table 2.

Statistical results of the meta-analysis concerning the fracture union rate after treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures. The overall surgical group comprises all procedures involving open reduction and internal fixation, regardless of the specific technique applied. The authors classified both bony and fibrous unions into the union group, while nonunions and pseudoarthrosis were classified into the nonunion group.

Medial epicondyle fracture complete union rate
Treatment	N	Pooled incidence (%)	LCI (%)	HCI (%)	Q	I ²
Surgical treatment
Overall	1720	97	95	98	95	52
K-wires	586	95	87	99	157	89
Screws	319	95	92	98	26	24
Conservative treatment
Immobilization	285	46	20	74	96	93

LCI: lower confidence interval; HCI: higher confidence interval; Q: Cochran’s Q.

Range of motion

Full elbow ROM was restored in 78% (95% CI: 72%–84%) of surgically treated patients, compared with 73% (95% CI: 65%–80%) in those managed conservatively. Screw fixation demonstrated slightly better, though not clinically significant, outcomes (79%, 95% CI: 70%–86%) compared with K-wire fixation (78%, 95% CI: 61%–91%). Mild elbow ROM limitation (<10°) occurred in 20% (95% CI: 13%–28%) of surgical patients overall, with clinically relevant stiffness (≥10° limitation) observed in only 11% (95% CI: 6%–17%). Regarding forearm pronation–supination, full rotation was recovered in 85% (95% CI: 66%–98%) of surgical cases and 95% (95% CI: 89%–99%) of conservatively treated ones. Overall, these findings confirm that surgical management provides a high probability of full functional recovery, particularly when stable fixation is achieved. Detailed results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Statistical results of the meta-analysis on the ROM achieved after treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures. The overall surgical group comprises all procedures involving open reduction and internal fixation, regardless of the specific technique applied. Several authors also evaluated the ROR; therefore, separate analyses were performed. The term “full” elbow ROM referred to a clinically assessed complete flexion–extension movement at the elbow joint, whereas “full” ROR referred to a complete pronation–supination movement of the forearm.

Range of motion
Category	Treatment	N	Pooled incidence (%)	LCI (%)	HCI (%)	Q	I ²
Surgical treatment
Full elbow ROM	Overall	1575	78	72	84	274	84
	K-wires	281	78	61	91	34	77
	Screws	535	79	70	86	68	76
Elbow ROM limitation <10°	Overall	479	20	13	28	44	68
	K-wires	37	15	5	28	0	0
	Screws	28	26	0	77	14	85
Elbow ROM limitation ≥10°	Overall	479	11	6	17	38	63
	K-Wires	37	14	0	38	4	52
	Screws	28	2	0	10	0	0
Full forearm ROR	Overall	108	85	66	98	24	80
	Screws	44	80	47	100	9	78
Conservative treatment
Full elbow ROM	Immobilization	315	73	65	80	32	54
Elbow ROM limitation <10°		101	16	2	37	26	81
Elbow ROM limitation ≥10°		101	6	0	15	12	58
Full forearm ROR		71	95	89	99	0	0

ROM: range of motion; ROR: range of rotation; LCI: lower confidence interval; HCI: higher confidence interval; Q: Cochran’s Q.

Outcome measures

The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) after surgery was 94 points (95% CI: 92–96), indicating good-to-excellent functional recovery, while conservative treatment achieved slightly higher scores (99 points, 95% CI: 98–100). Pain intensity, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS), was minimal in the surgical group (0 points, 95% CI: 0–1), suggesting effective restoration of elbow function without residual pain. Patient-reported disability was very low, with pooled Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and QuickDASH scores of 2 and 2 points, respectively. Collectively, these results emphasize that both surgical and conservative approaches can yield good to excellent elbow function when appropriately indicated. Detailed results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Statistical results of the meta-analysis regarding the outcome measures, assessed with standardized scales, achieved after treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures. The overall surgical group comprises all procedures involving open reduction and internal fixation, regardless of the specific technique applied. The VAS, designed to assess pain intensity, ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), with higher scores indicating greater pain severity. The MEPS, used to evaluate elbow function including pain, motion, stability, and daily activities, ranges from 0 to 100 points, with higher scores indicating better elbow performance. The DASH questionnaire, used to evaluate upper extremity function and symptoms in daily activities, ranges from 0 (no disability) to 100 (maximum disability). The QuickDASH questionnaire, a shortened version of the DASH assessing upper limb disability and symptoms, ranges from 0 (no disability) to 100 (most severe disability).

Outcome measures
Category	Treatment	N	Pooled mean	Standard error	Variance	Lower limit	Upper limit	Z-value	p-Value
Surgical treatment
VAS	Overall	168	0	0	0	0	1	4	0.00
VAS	Screws	88	1	0	0	0	1	2	0.02
MEPS	Overall	408	94	1	1	92	96	83	0.00
	K-wires	167	95	1	1	93	97	93	0.00
	Screws	161	94	2	3	90	97	56	0.00
DASH	Overall	20	2	0	0	1	2	4	0.00
QuickDASH	Overall	218	2	1	1	1	4	3	0.00
Conservative treatment
MEPS	Immobilization	85	99	0	0	98	100	205	0.00
DASH		46	0	0	0	0	1	2	0.09
QuickDASH		62	2	0	0	1	2	4	0.00
Category			Treatment	N	Pooled incidence (%)	LCI (%)	HCI (%)	Q	I ²
Surgical treatment
Stable elbow in Valgus stress test^a			Overall	1118	97	94	98	87	65
			K-wires	480	95	92	98	22	49
			Screws	183	98	96	100	8	0
Excellent in Berg and Morrey Elbow Score			Overall	140	70	55	82	14	56
Good in Berg and Morrey Elbow Score					26	17	36	7	20
Fair in Berg and Morrey Elbow Score					5	2	10	2	0
Poor in Berg and Morrey Elbow Score					2	0	5	3	0
Conservative treatment
Stable elbow in Valgus stress test^a			Immobilization	501	91	85	96	64	70

LCI: lower confidence interval; HCI: higher confidence interval; Q: Cochran’s Q; VAS: visual analog scale; MEPS: Mayo Elbow Performance Score; DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; QuickDASH: Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand.

Some authors did not explicitly refer to the Valgus test by name, however, they assessed the clinical stability of the elbow while maintaining the same conceptual approach.

Complications

The overall complication rate following surgical treatment was 21% (95% CI: 16%–27%), compared to 36% (95% CI: 13%–63%) for conservative immobilization. A clinically relevant postoperative complication was ulnar nerve irritation symptoms, occurring in 9% (95% CI: 6%–12%) of all surgical cases, with a higher incidence after K-wire fixation (12%, 95% CI: 1%–32%) than with screws (7%, 95% CI: 3%–11%). Infection was relatively uncommon (5%, 95% CI: 3%–7%), particularly with screw fixation (3%, 95% CI: 1%–4%). Perceptible hardware prominence was reported in 34% (95% CI: 22%–47%) of screw cases. Heterotopic ossification and implant failure were rare (≤3%). Additionally, a reduction in muscle power was reported in 15% (95% CI: 8%–22%) of conservatively treated patients, underscoring the potential functional limitations of nonoperative management. Detailed results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Statistical results of the meta-analysis on complications following treatment for primary medial epicondyle fractures. The overall surgical group comprises all procedures involving open reduction and internal fixation, regardless of the specific technique applied. The total complication rate was calculated only from studies in which the authors reported the overall number of complications in relation to the total number of treated patients.

Complications
Category	Treatment	N	Pooled incidence (%)	LCI (%)	HCI (%)	Q	I ²
Surgical treatment
Total complications rate	Overall	980	21	16	27	119	77
	K-wires	56	30	3	66	8	75
	Screws	388	20	12	29	45	73
Ulnar nerve irritation symptoms	Overall	1767	9	6	12	167	77
	K-wires	266	12	1	32	42	90
	Screws	639	7	3	11	51	74
Infection	Overall	1024	5	3	7	39	36
	K-wires	109	15	7	24	5	20
	Screws	489	3	1	4	5	0
Excessive stiffness	Overall	408	11	1	29	60	93
Heterotopic ossification	Overall	580	3	1	5	17	53
Implant failure	Overall	374	2	1	3	6	0
Perceptible hardware prominence	Screws	204	34	22	47	15	60
Conservative treatment
Total complications rate	Immobilization	165	36	13	63	50	90
Ulnar nerve irritation symptoms		145	7	3	12	6	0
Muscle power loss		183	15	8	22	9	41

LCI: lower confidence interval; HCI: higher confidence interval; Q: Cochran’s Q.

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes four decades of literature on the management of medial epicondylar fractures in pediatric and adolescent patients. Drawing from 65 studies and more than 2000 cases, it provides an overview of union rates, functional recovery, and complication profiles across various management strategies. The results highlight consistently high healing and functional outcomes following both surgical fixation and conservative treatment, with certain trends suggesting potential advantages of stable fixation techniques. Recent imaging-based work also suggests that medial epicondyle injuries may be more heterogeneous than previously assumed. Lee et al. described partial avulsion patterns involving the proximal ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) footprint and cortical sleeve avulsions, which represented 15.9% of medial epicondyle fractures in their cohort. This finding is clinically relevant because treatment decisions based only on displacement of the main epicondylar fragment may overlook displacement of the attached stabilizing soft-tissue structures.⁷⁴

The overall union rate for surgical management was 97%, with both screw fixation and K-wire fixation achieving a pooled union rate of 95%. In contrast, conservative treatment yielded a substantially lower union rate of 46%, with nonoverlapping confidence intervals between the overall surgical and conservative groups confirming the statistical significance of this difference. These findings indicate that internal fixation, irrespective of the implant used, is more reliably associated with bone consolidation than conservative management. Based on the obtained results, conservative treatment is associated with a high likelihood of nonunion, whereas surgical management appears clearly more appropriate for achieving stable bone union. However, the clinical relevance of nonunion depends on symptoms and later treatment requirements. Lee et al. reported that delayed surgery after failed initial nonoperative care or delayed diagnosis was feasible, particularly within 3 months of injury, but longer delays often required more complex procedures, including soft-tissue releases, UCL reconstruction, or ulnar nerve procedures.⁷⁵

Functional recovery, as measured by full elbow ROM, was also high in surgically managed patients (78%), with K-wires and screws demonstrating similar profiles (78% and 79%, respectively). Conservative treatment yielded comparable results (73%). Although the pooled incidence of ROM limitations ≥10° was higher in the surgical group than in the conservative treatment group (11% versus 6%), this difference was not statistically significant. Pronation–supination recovery was excellent across both treatment strategies, reaching 85% in surgical cases and 95% in conservatively treated cases. These data suggest that, with both approaches, maintaining a full or only minimally limited elbow ROM is highly probable. It is important to remember that limitations in joint mobility are not solely the result of improper bone union but rather reflect dysfunction of the entire joint complex, including the surrounding soft tissues and the duration of immobilization. This supports the importance of stable fixation constructs that allow early motion when surgery is selected. Haward et al. described a modified screw fixation technique augmented with a transosseous tension-band suture, in their early series of 13 elbows, all fractures united, functional ROM was achieved in all patients, and no cases of nonunion, symptomatic malunion, wire breakage, or stiffness requiring contracture release were observed.⁷⁶

Standardized outcome scores, such as the MEPS, generally indicated good-to-excellent functional results across treatment modalities. The mean MEPS was 94 in surgical cohorts and 99 in conservative cohorts. Although conservative cases appeared to score higher, this likely reflects case selection bias, with stable, low-energy injuries more frequently managed nonoperatively. Nevertheless, these differences are minimal and may be regarded as clinically irrelevant. VAS pain scores were uniformly low, and QuickDASH values remained low in both groups, reaching two in both surgical and conservative cohorts. No significant differences were observed between surgical and conservative treatment in terms of elbow stability assessed by the valgus stress test, with stable elbows reported in 97% of surgically treated patients and 91% of conservatively treated patients.

Importantly, the recent SCIENCE trial by Perry et al. provides high-quality randomized evidence that should be interpreted alongside the pooled observational data of the present meta-analysis.⁷⁰ In this multicenter trial, surgical fixation did not produce a clinically meaningful improvement in upper limb function, pain, return to activity, or quality of life compared with nonsurgical care at 12 months. Surgery was also associated with more additional procedures and higher treatment costs. From the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, surgical fixation cost on average £2435 more per patient and had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. These findings suggest that the higher radiographic union rate after surgery should not be interpreted alone, but rather balanced against patient-reported outcomes, complications, and health-care costs.

Complication rates represent a key aspect in assessing the risk associated with each type of therapy. Conservative care carried the highest overall complication rate at 36%, followed by ORIF using K-wires at 30% and screw-based fixation at 20%. Notably, ulnar nerve symptoms were more frequent after K-wire fixation (12%) than after screw fixation (7%), while infections were substantially more frequent with K-wires (15%) compared with screws (3%). Moreover, perceptible hardware prominence was common with screws, reaching 34%. Conservative treatment was also associated with a relatively high rate of reported muscle power loss (15%), possibly reflecting prolonged immobilization. In addition to postoperative complications, intraoperative technical events should also be considered. Arif et al. reported guidewire breakage in 6.1% of children treated with cannulated screw fixation, most often during guidewire repositioning or over-drilling.⁷⁷ Although retained intraosseous fragments were not associated with short-term infection, migration, or fixation failure, breakage significantly increased tourniquet time.

The presence of statistically distinct pooled estimates, particularly for union and complication rate, supports a more confident interpretation than previously possible. Screw fixation was consistently associated with high union rates, low complication incidence, and excellent functional recovery, making it a strong option when surgical intervention is indicated. However, functional outcomes and ROM were favorable across all treatment groups, suggesting that both surgical and conservative strategies can achieve excellent results when appropriately matched to patient and injury characteristics.

While our pooled dataset could not stratify outcomes by displacement magnitude, elbow stability, or ulnar nerve symptoms, many surgeons consider these features, particularly displacement >5 mm, valgus laxity, and level of activity, as practical indications for surgery.^22,30 The observed trends in union and complication profiles reinforce this rationale. Conversely, conservative treatment appears well-suited to low-energy, minimally displaced fractures in clinically stable elbows, as reflected in high MEPS and good motion recovery.^24,57 These findings emphasize the importance of careful patient selection and individualized decision-making in optimizing outcomes. The authors suggest that refraining from surgical treatment should be approached with caution, as the risk of nonunion is considerable.

This meta-analysis is not without its limitations. The results of any review are, by nature, constrained by the quality of data available in the literature. Some analyses could not be performed due to insufficient data availability. Future studies should provide a more detailed description of the indications on which the decision for surgical intervention was based, as well as report outcomes stratified according to these indications. It should be noted that the results are to some extent influenced by differences in patient selection between conservative and surgical treatment groups. Patients with big fragment avulsion type fractures are typically indicated for surgery, whereas those with small, nondisplaced fragments are more likely to receive conservative management. Randomized controlled trials would undoubtedly provide results free from this bias; however, randomization in this context appears difficult to achieve. From an ethical standpoint, assigning a patient without surgical indications to an operative group—or, conversely, managing a patient conservatively despite clear indications for surgery—would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, a more detailed breakdown of data in retrospective studies would certainly be beneficial for future research and the development of more refined conclusions. We believe that the results of our meta-analysis, despite these limitations, will be valuable in guiding clinical decision-making and will help estimate the risk of potential outcomes and complications in patients with medial epicondyle fractures.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that both surgical and conservative treatment of medial epicondylar fractures in pediatric and adolescent patients can result in excellent functional outcomes when appropriately indicated. Among surgical options, screw fixation was associated with high union rate and the lowest complication profile, with statistically distinct pooled estimates supporting its reliability in achieving stable healing and early mobilization. While conservative treatment was associated with lower union rates and higher complication rates, functional scores and motion recovery remained favorable. Nevertheless, the authors suggest that refraining from surgical treatment should be approached with caution, as the risk of nonunion is considerable. These findings support a tailored approach to management, where the choice of intervention should reflect fracture characteristics, patient activity level, and clinical stability. We believe that the pooled estimates from our study will be valuable in guiding clinical decision-making and will help assess the risk of potential outcomes and complications in patients with medial epicondyle fractures.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 – Supplemental material for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis by Michał Bonczar, Patryk Ostrowski, Jakub Wilk, Ignacy Jastrzębski, Jerzy Walocha, Mateusz Koziej and Mariusz Bonczar in Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 – Supplemental material for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis by Michał Bonczar, Patryk Ostrowski, Jakub Wilk, Ignacy Jastrzębski, Jerzy Walocha, Mateusz Koziej and Mariusz Bonczar in Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 – Supplemental material for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis by Michał Bonczar, Patryk Ostrowski, Jakub Wilk, Ignacy Jastrzębski, Jerzy Walocha, Mateusz Koziej and Mariusz Bonczar in Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 – Supplemental material for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cho-10.1177_18632521261461017 for Clinical outcomes of management of primary medial epicondylar fractures: A systematic review with meta-analysis by Michał Bonczar, Patryk Ostrowski, Jakub Wilk, Ignacy Jastrzębski, Jerzy Walocha, Mateusz Koziej and Mariusz Bonczar in Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contributions

M.i.B. – Methodology, Registration, Search, Extraction, Statistical analysis, Writing, Literature, Figures, Tables; P.O. – Writing; J.a.W. – Extraction, Figures; J.I. – Methodology, Search; J.e.W. – Writing; M.K. – Statistical analysis, Writing; M.a.B. – Writing.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis based exclusively on previously published data. Therefore, it did not involve any direct interaction with human participants, nor the collection of identifiable personal data. In accordance with current research guidelines, ethical approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee was not required for this type of study. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that utilize data from publicly available sources are generally exempt from ethical approval, as no new data are collected from human subjects. As no human participants were directly involved in this study, written informed consent was also not required.

ORCID iD

Michał Bonczar

Availability of data and materials

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Axibal

Ketterman

Skelton

, et al. No difference in outcomes in a matched cohort of operative versus nonoperatively treated displaced medial epicondyle fractures. J Pediatr Orthop B 2019; 28: 520–525.

Beck

Bowen

Silva

What’s new in pediatric medial epicondyle fractures?

J Pediatr Orthop 2018; 38: e202–e206.

Cain

Liesman

Fleisig

, et al. Clinical outcomes and return to play in youth overhead athletes after medial epicondyle fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9: 2325967120976573.

Polatsch

Melone

Beldner

, et al. Ulnar nerve anatomy. Hand Clin 2007; 23: 283–289.

Josefsson

Danielsson

LG.

Epicondylar elbow fracture in children: 35-year follow-up of 56 unreduced cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1986; 57: 313–315.

Booth

Clarke

Dooley

, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 2.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 10(1): n71.

Sterne

Hernán

Reeves

, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919.

Sterne

JAC

Savović

Page

, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898.

10.

Furuya-Kanamori

Barendregt

Doi

SAR.

A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2018; 16: 195–203.

11.

Higgins

JPT

Thomas

Chandler

, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

12.

Papavasiliou

VA.

Fracture-separation of the medial epicondylar epiphysis of the elbow joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982; (171): 172–174.

13.

van Niekerk

Severijnen

. Medial epicondyle fractures of the humerus. Neth J Surg 1985; 37: 141–144.

14.

Hines

Herndon

Evans

JP.

Operative treatment of Medial epicondyle fractures in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (223): 170–174.

15.

Dias

Johnson

Hoskinson

, et al. Management of severely displaced medial epicondyle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1987; 1: 59–62.

16.

Wilson

NIL

Ingram

Rymaszewski

, et al. Treatment of fractures of the medial epicondyle of the humerus. Injury 1988; 19: 342–344.

17.

Fowles

Slimane

Kassab

Elbow dislocation with avulsion of the medial humeral epicondyle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990; 72-B: 102–104.

18.

Nyska

Peiser

Lukiec

, et al. Avulsion fracture of the medial epicondyle caused by arm wrestling. Am J Sports Med 1992; 20: 347–350.

19.

Skak

Grossmann

Wagn

Deformity after internal fixation of fracture separation of the medial epicondyle of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76: 297–302.

20.

Duun

Ravn

Hansen

, et al. Osteosynthesis of medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children: 8-year follow-up of 33 cases. Acta Orthop 1994; 65: 439–441.

21.

Partio

Hirvensalo

Böstman

, et al. A prospective controlled trial of the fracture of the humeral medial epicondyle—how to treat? Ann Chir Gynaecol 1996; 85: 67–71.

22.

Case

Hennrikus

WL.

Surgical treatment of displaced medial epicondyle fractures in adolescent athletes. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25: 682–686.

23.

Pimpalnerkar

Balasubramaniam

Young

, et al. Type four fracture of the medial epicondyle: a true indication for surgical intervention. Injury 1998; 29: 751–756.

24.

Farsetti

Potenza

Caterini

, et al. Long-term results of treatment of fractures of the medial humeral epicondyle in children. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 2001; 83: 1299–1305.

25.

Lee

H-H

Shen

H-C

Chang

J-H

, et al. Operative treatment of displaced medial epicondyle fractures in children and adolescents. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: 178–185.

26.

Bulut

Erken

Tan

, et al. [Treatment of medial epicondyle fractures accompanying elbow dislocations in children]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2005; 39: 334–340.

27.

Haxhija

Mayr

Grechenig

, et al. Die Behandlung der Apophysenabrissverletzung des Epicondylus ulnaris im Kindesalter. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2006; 18: 120–134.

28.

Ristanis

Vasiliadis

Mpoulis

Conservative treatment of posterolateral dislocation of the elbow with medial epicondyle fracture in children between 6 and 8 years old. Injury Extra 2007; 38: 417–421.

29.

Tsang

Medial humeral epicondylar fracture in children and adolescents. J Orthop Surg 2007; 15: 170–173.

30.

Louahem

Bourelle

Buscayret

, et al. Displaced medial epicondyle fractures of the humerus: surgical treatment and results. A report of 139 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130: 649–655.

31.

Osbahr

Chalmers

Frank

, et al. Acute, avulsion fractures of the medial epicondyle while throwing in youth baseball players: a variant of Little League elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 951–957.

32.

Harada

Takahara

Hirayama

, et al. Outcome of nonoperative treatment for humeral medial epicondylar fragmentation before epiphyseal closure in young baseball players. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40: 1583–1590.

33.

Glotzbecker

Shore

Matheney

, et al. Alternative technique for open reduction and fixation of displaced pediatric medial epicondyle fractures. J Child Orthop 2012; 6: 105–109.

34.

Park

Kwak

YH.

Treatment of medial epicondyle fracture without associated elbow dislocation in older children and adolescents. Yonsei Med J 2012; 53: 1190.

35.

Lawrence

JTR

Patel

Macknin

, et al. Return to competitive sports after medial epicondyle fractures in adolescent athletes. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41: 1152–1157.

36.

Dodds

Flanagin

Bohl

, et al. Incarcerated medial epicondyle fracture following pediatric elbow dislocation: 11 cases. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39: 1739–1745.

37.

Joshi

Sundararaj

GD.

Clinical results of surgically treated medial humeral epicondylar apophyseal avulsion injury in children and adolescent. J Lumbini Med Coll 2014; 2: 31.

38.

Tarallo

Mugnai

Fiacchi

, et al. Pediatric medial epicondyle fractures with intra-articular elbow incarceration. J Orthop Traumatol 2015; 16: 117–123.

39.

Lim

KBL

Woo

Chong

, et al. The isolated medial humeral epicondyle fracture treated nonoperatively. J Pediatr Orthop B 2015; 24: 184–190.

40.

Biggers

Bert

Moisan

, et al. Fracture of the medial humeral epicondyle in children: a comparison of operative and nonoperative management. J Surg Orthop Adv 2015; 24(3): 188–192.

41.

Stepanovich

Bastrom

Munch

, et al. Does operative fixation affect outcomes of displaced medial epicondyle fractures? J Child Orthop 2016; 10: 413–419.

42.

Rigal

Thelen

Angelliaume

, et al. A new procedure for fractures of the medial epicondyle in children: Mitek® bone suture anchor. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102: 117–120.

43.

Pace

Hennrikus

Fixation of displaced medial epicondyle fractures in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 2017; 37: e80–e82.

44.

Canavese

Marengo

Tiris

, et al. Radiological, clinical and functional evaluation using the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire of children with medial epicondyle fractures treated surgically. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 1447–1452.

45.

Patel

Gajewski

Ascoli

, et al. Washers do not affect the rate of implant removal or elbow motion in medial epicondyle fractures. J Pediatr Orthop B 2019; 28: 526–529.

46.

Vuillermin

Donohue

Miller

, et al. Incarcerated medial epicondyle fractures with elbow dislocation: risk factors associated with morbidity. J Pediatr Orthop 2019; 39: e647–e651.

47.

Nan

Treatment of medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children using absorbable self-reinforced polylactide pins. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e19861.

48.

Kim

Park

K-B

, et al. Is computed tomography necessary for diagnostic workup in displaced pediatric medial epicondyle fractures? Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10: 957.

49.

García-Mata

Arbeloa-Gutierrez

Brun

, et al. Prospective study of pediatric medial humeral epicondyle fractures nonoperatively treated. Clinical, radiologic, and functional evaluation at long term. J Pediatr Orthop B 2021; 30: 180–189.

50.

Ergin

ON.

Long-term comparative study of internal fixation with Kirschner wires or cannulated screws for displaced medial epicondyle fractures of the humerus in children: a 10-year follow-up of 42 cases. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2020; 26(1): 137–143.

51.

Rai

, et al. Is bioabsorbable screw an alternative choice for displaced medial epicondylar fractures in adolescents. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e22001.

52.

Nielsen

Andras

Anesi

, et al. Operative fixation of medial epicondyle fractures: complication rates based on mode of fixation. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e20015.

53.

Axibal

Carry

Skelton

, et al. No difference in return to sport and other outcomes between operative and nonoperative treatment of medial epicondyle fractures in pediatric upper-extremity athletes. Clin J Sport Med 2020; 30: e214–e218.

54.

Baghdadi

Weltsch

Arkader

, et al. Open reduction of medial epicondyle fractures in the pediatric population: supine versus prone position. J Pediatr Orthop 2021; 41: 273–278.

55.

Scherer

Dietzel

Jordan

, et al. Changes in the management of pediatric medial humeral epicondyle fractures with and without associated elbow dislocation. Injury 2021; 52: 2257–2264.

56.

Patel

Tarkunde

Wall

, et al. Long-term outcomes of operatively treated medial epicondyle fractures in pediatric and adolescent patients. J Hand Surg Glob Online 2021; 3: 124–128.

57.

Grahn

Hämäläinen

Nietosvaara

, et al. Comparison of outcome between nonoperative and operative treatment of medial epicondyle fractures. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 114–119.

58.

Rivera

LVS

Cazzulino

Swarup

Rate of utilization of physical therapy after common pediatric elbow fractures. J Pediatr Orthop B 2022; 31: e1–e6.

59.

Kassai

Varga

Józsa

Pediatric medial humeral epicondyle fracture in children: are biodegradable pins with tension band absorbable sutures efficient?

Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101: e29817.

60.

Baldini

Coppa

Falcioni

, et al. Resorbable magnesium screws for fixation of medial epicondyle avulsion fractures in skeletally immature patients: a comparison with Kirschner wires. J Child Orthop 2022; 16: 481–487.

61.

Jeong

Lee

S-U

Kim

, et al. Medial epicondyle fracture in children and its association with increased carrying angle. Int J Clin Pract 2022; 2022: 6414247.

62.

Stelmach

Beczkowski

Zając

, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of surgical treatment of medial epicondyle fractures of humerus in children. A two-centre study. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 10095.

63.

Zeng

Song

, et al. Comparison of the midterm result between Lag-Screw fixation and K-wires treating displaced medial epicondyle fractures in children. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102: e36197.

64.

Zhuang

Lou

, et al. Comparison of surgical treatment outcomes of pediatric medial epicondyle fractures with and without elbow dislocation. J Hand Surg Am 2023; 48: 949.e1–949.e6.

65.

Ziegman

Duncan

Balch Samora

Do insurance and socioeconomic status affect outcomes for children who undergo surgery for medial epicondyle fractures?

Curr Orthop Pract 2023; 34: 263–268.

66.

Liu

The necessity of ulnar nerve exploration and translocation in open reduction of medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children. Bone Joint J 2024; 106-B: 212–218.

67.

Siebert

Zhang

Stephens

, et al. Screw diameter and use of a washer affect symptomatic implant removal rates in pediatric medial epicondyle fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 2024; 44: 427–432.

68.

Jones

Beber

Albright

, et al. Length of post-treatment immobilization following medial humeral epicondyle avulsion fracture predicts return of full range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2025; 34: 1105–1111.

69.

Zeng

Xie

Cao

, et al. Midterm comparative result of absorbable screws and metal screws in pediatric medial humeral epicondyle fracture. J Orthop Sci 2025; 30: 824–829.

70.

Perry

Achten

Zimmermann

, et al. Surgical fixation versus non-surgical care for children with a displaced medial epicondyle fracture of the elbow (the SCIENCE study): a multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial and economic evaluation. Lancet 2026; 407: 577–586.

71.

Zheng

Bae

Yen

Y-M

, et al. Medial epicondylar apophyseal avulsion fractures in youth throwers: a severe variant of little league elbow. Orthop J Sports Med 2025; 13(9): 23259671251365974.

72.

Grahn

Helenius

Hämäläinen

, et al. Casting vs surgical treatment of children with medial epicondyle fractures. JAMA Netw Open 2025; 8: e258479.

73.

Wang

Chen

, et al. Cannulated screw versus kirschner wire fixation for pediatric medial epicondylar fractures: Focusing on pain management and complication patterns. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2025; 33(3): 10225536251391386.

74.

Lee

Syed

Bowen

, et al. Partial avulsion patterns in the pediatric humeral medial epicondyle. Am J Sports Med 2025; 53: 537–542.

75.

Lee

Syed

Bowen

, et al. Timing matters: challenges in delayed surgical management of pediatric humeral medial epicondyle fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. Epub ahead of print 8 May 2025. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002995.

76.

Haward

Cain

Wang

Modified screw fixation technique for medial epicondyle fractures to reduce complications and improve stability of fixation. J Child Orthop 2026; 20: 50–56.

77.

Arif

Pyle

Lamadrid

, et al. Intraoperative guidewire breakage during open reduction and internal fixation of pediatric medial epicondyle humerus fractures: a single-institution review. J Pediatr Orthop Soc North Am 2026; 15: 100347.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.03 MB

0.00 MB

0.26 MB

0.00 MB