Carrying angle measurements were obtained from 800 arms (400 right, 400 left).
There are inverse relationships (r=-0.474, p<0.001) between the carrying angle and height.
Our concern is carrying angle, which is described as angle between the arm and forearm in the frontal plane and has an important role on carrying loads (Zampagni et al, 2008; Hassan et al., 2014).
In addition, a study about variations of carrying angle according to age, sex and dominancy in 275 healthy volunteers reported that in the right arm dominant group, right carrying angle was 11.25[degrees] [+ or -] 3.73[degrees] and left carrying angle was 10.57[degrees] [+ or -] 3.63[degrees] while in the left arm dominant group, right carrying angle was 10.65[degrees] [+ or -] 3.99[degrees] and left carrying angle was 12.93[degrees] [+ or -] 4.22[degrees] (Yilmaz et al., 2005).
In contrast to this, mean carrying angle is higher in females than males.
There were several studies for carrying angle but there were not enough study about correlation of carrying angle with bi-acromial diameter, bi-acromial diameter/bi-trochanteric diameter.
Fair: Carrying angle loss 10 to 15[degrees] restriction of elbow motion 10-15[degrees].
Poor: Carrying angle loss more than 15[degrees] restriction of elbow motion more than 15[degrees].
In our study of 28 patients at the final follow up, 17patients (61%) had loss of carrying angle of 0-5[degrees], 7 patients (25%) had loss of carrying angle of 6-10[degrees], 2 patients (7%) had loss of carrying angle of 11-15[degrees] and 2 patients (7%) had >15[degrees] of loss of carrying angle In our study, 4 cases (14.28%) had cubitus varus deformity in comparison with Andrew (1) et al, study of 52 patients, five patients had varus angulation of <10[degrees], 6 had 10-20[degrees] and two had varus deformity of >20[degrees].
Table 6: CLOSED MANIPULATION & PERCUTANEOS PINNING RESULTS: Flynn Criteria Cosmetic factor--loss Functional for reduction of carrying angle factor--loss of Assessment (degree) motion (degree) Excellent 0-5 0-5 Good 5-10 5-10 Fair 10-15 10-15 Poor >15 >15 RESULTS: Flynn Criteria No of patients for reduction Percentage Assessment Excellent 8 67 Good 4 33 Fair -- -- Poor -- -- TYPE III FRACTURES:
Fair: union with minimum displacement, limitation of terminal range of movements of not more than 25 degrees, alteration in carrying angle of up to 10 degrees, premature fusion of the physis, no avascular necrosis, mild local deformity, radiograph showing a step/gap of 2-5mm.
Poor: Nonunion at fracture site, gross limitation of elbow movements, alteration in carrying angle of more than 10 degrees, premature fusion of the physis, avascular necrosis of the fragment, visible deformity at local site, radiograph showing a step/gap of more than 5mm.