Study on outcome of fracture shaft of the humerus treated non-operatively with a functional brace

Clinical effect of operative vs nonoperative treatment on humeral shaft fractures: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Whether operation is superior to non-operation for humeral shaft fracture remains debatable. We hypothesized that operation could decrease the nonunion and reintervention rates and increase the functional outcomes.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy between operative and nonoperative approaches for humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases from 1990 to December 2023 for clinical trials and cohort studies comparing the effects of operative and conservative methods on humeral shaft fractures. Two investigators independently extracted data from the eligible studies, and the other two assessed the methodological quality of each study. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk bias or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The nonunion, reintervention and the overall complications and functional scores were pooled and analyzed using Review Manager software (version 5.3).

RESULTS

A total of four randomized control trials and 13 cohort studies were included, with 1285 and 1346 patients in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively. Patients in the operative group were treated with a plate or nail, whereas those in the conservative group were managed with splint or functional bracing. Four studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias, and the other 13 were of a low risk of bias according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk bias tool. The operative group had a significantly decreased rate of nonunion [odds ratio (OR) 0.30; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.40), reintervention (OR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.24 to 0.47), and overall complications (OR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.49 to 0.78)]. The pooled effect of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score showed a significant difference at 3 [mean difference (MD) -8.26; 95%CI: -13.60 to -2.92], 6 (MD: -6.72; 95%CI: -11.34 to -2.10), and 12 months (MD: -2.55; 95%CI: -4.36 to -0.74). The pooled effect of Visual Analog Scale scores and the Constant-Murley score did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a trend of rapid functional recovery and decreased rates of nonunion and reintervention after operation for humeral shaft fracture compared to conservative treatment.

Nonoperative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures With Immediate Functional Bracing Versus Coaptation Splinting and Delayed Functional Bracing: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

To compare radiographic and clinical outcomes in nonoperative management of humeral shaft fractures treated initially with coaptation splinting (CS) followed by delayed functional bracing (FB) versus treatment with immediate FB.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic Level 1 Trauma Center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Patients with closed humeral shaft fractures managed nonoperatively with initial CS followed by delayed FB or with immediate FB from 2016 to 2022. Patients younger than 18 years and/or with less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

The primary outcome was coronal and sagittal radiographic alignment assessed at the final follow-up. Secondary outcomes included rate of failure of nonoperative management (defined as surgical conversion and/or fracture nonunion), fracture union, and skin complications secondary to splint/brace wear.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were managed nonoperatively with delayed FB (n = 58) or immediate FB (n = 39). Overall, the mean age was 49.9 years (range 18-94 years), and 64 (66%) patients were female. The immediate FB group had less smokers ( P = 0.003) and lower incidence of radial nerve palsy ( P = 0.025), with more proximal third humeral shaft fractures ( P = 0.001). There were no other significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics ( P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in coronal ( P = 0.144) or sagittal ( P = 0.763) radiographic alignment between the groups. In total, 33 (34.0%) humeral shaft fractures failed nonoperative management, with 11 (28.2%) in the immediate FB group and 22 (37.9%) in the delayed FB group ( P = 0.322). There were no significant differences in fracture union ( P = 0.074) or skin complications ( P = 0.259) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with immediate functional bracing did not result in significantly different radiographic or clinical outcomes compared to treatment with CS followed by delayed functional bracing. Future prospective studies assessing patient-reported outcomes will further guide clinical decision making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[Therapy of Humeral Shaft Fractures]

Humeral shaft fractures are a rare but challenging entity of injuries of the upper extremity. Despite all advances in the past decades - including improved imaging, adjusted surgical techniques and new implant designs - the treatment of humeral shaft fractures and especially the treatment choice remains challenging. Treatment options need to be evaluated individually under consideration of fracture morphology, soft tissue and potential neurological damage as well as patient-specific factors (i.e., age, comorbidities). Moreover, the risk of common complications such as radial nerve palsy, infection, non-union and malrotation needs to be evaluated in order to facilitate the best possible therapy for each patient. The regular available treatment options include conservative (cast, brace, etc.) and surgical measures (ante- and retrograde nailing, angle-stable plate osteosynthesis). Furthermore, (temporary) external fixation remains an option in emergency and complicative cases. However, none of the aforementioned options have proven a superior gold standard. This review evaluates the currently available treatment options and their individual advantages as well as the probability of possible complications and is aiming to supply a guide for individual treatment choice.

Humeral shaft fracture: systematic review of non-operative and operative treatment

INTRODUCTION

Humeral shaft fractures can be treated non-operatively or operatively. The optimal management is subject to debate. The aim was to compare non-operative and operative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture in terms of fracture healing, complications, and functional outcome.

METHODS

Databases of Embase, Medline ALL, Web-of-Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched for publications reporting clinical and functional outcomes of humeral shaft fractures after non-operative treatment with a functional brace or operative treatment by intramedullary nailing (IMN; antegrade or retrograde) or plate osteosynthesis (open plating or minimally invasive). A pooled analysis of the results was performed using MedCalc.

RESULTS

A total of 173 studies, describing 11,868 patients, were included. The fracture healing rate for the non-operative group was 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84-92%), 94% (95% CI 92-95%) for the IMN group and 96% (95% CI 95-97%) for the plating group. The rate of secondary radial nerve palsies was 1% in patients treated non-operatively, 3% in the IMN, and 6% in the plating group. Intraoperative complications and implant failures occurred more frequently in the IMN group than in the plating group. The DASH score was the lowest (7/100; 95% CI 1-13) in the minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis group. The Constant-Murley and UCLA shoulder score were the highest [93/100 (95% CI 92-95) and 33/35 (95% CI 32-33), respectively] in the plating group.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that even though all treatment modalities result in satisfactory outcomes, operative treatment is associated with the most favorable results. Disregarding secondary radial nerve palsy, specifically plate osteosynthesis seems to result in the highest fracture healing rates, least complications, and best functional outcomes compared with the other treatment modalities.

Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) Through the Posterior Approach for the Humerus: A Cadaveric Study

Background Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) has been effectively used in femur and tibia fractures. MIPO in the humerus is conducted by anterior (most commonly used), lateral, and posterior approaches. However, in the anterior approach, in distal humeral diaphyseal fractures, there is a lack of adequate room for screw placement in the distal fragment for good stability. In such cases, the posterior approach for MIPO may be a propitious treatment method. However, the literature on MIPO using the posterior approach for humeral diaphyseal fractures is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of MIPO through the posterior approach and study the association of radial nerve injury with MIPO through the posterior approach for the humerus. Methodology This experimental study was conducted in the Department of Orthopedics, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, and 20 cadaveric arms (10 right and 10 left) of 11 embalmed (formalin) cadavers were included (seven males and four females). Cadavers were placed prone on the dissection table. The posterolateral tip of the acromion and lateral epicondyle of the humerus were used as bony landmarks that were marked under C-Arm (Ziehm Imaging, Orlando, FL, USA) using K wires (Kirschner wires, Surgical Holdings, Essex, UK). Two incisions on the posterior part of the arm were made, and the radial nerve was identified at the proximal incision. After creating a submuscular tunnel, a 3.5 mm extraarticular distal humeral locking compression plate (LCP) was introduced over the posterior surface of the humerus and fixed to the humerus distally with one screw and then adjusted proximally and fixed to the humerus with another screw in the proximal window, followed by placement of couple more screws under C-Arm. After plate fixation, the dissection was completed to meticulously explore the radial nerve. The radial nerve was examined thoroughly for any injury sustained after completion of dissection, from the triangular interval to the lateral intermuscular septum where the nerve enters the anterior chamber. The position of the radial nerve with respect to plate holes was noted. The distance from the posterolateral tip of the acromion to the lateral epicondyle was measured as humeral length. The medial and lateral points where radial nerve passed over the posterior surface of the humerus were measured from the posterolateral tip of the acromion and compared with the humeral length. Results In this study, the radial nerve was lying over the posterior surface of the humerus for a mean distance of 52.161 ± 5.16 mm. The mean distance at which the radial nerve crossed the medial and lateral borders of the posterior surface of the humerus, measured from the posterolateral tip of the acromion, was 118.34 ± 10.86 mm (40.07% of humeral length) and 170 ± 12.30 mm (57.57% of humeral length), respectively, and the mean humeral length in this study was 295.27 ± 17.94 mm. The radial nerve and its branches were found to be intact in all cases. The radial nerve was related to the fifth, sixth, and seventh holes, with the nerve lying most commonly over the sixth hole (3.5 mm extraarticular distal humerus locking plate). Conclusions The posterior approach of MIPO in humeral fractures is a safe and reliable treatment modality with minimal risk of radial nerve injury. The radial nerve can be safely identified at the spiral groove using the bony landmarks described in our study.

Humeral shaft fractures: a cost-effectiveness analysis of operative versus nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

Humeral shaft fractures can be managed operatively or nonoperatively with functional bracing in the absence of neurovascular injury, open fracture, or polytrauma. A consensus on optimal management has not been reached, nor has the cost-effectiveness perspective been investigated.

METHODS

A decision tree was constructed describing the management of humeral shaft fractures with open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF), intramedullary nailing (IMN), and functional bracing in a non-elderly population. Probabilities were defined using weighted averages determined from systematic review of the literature. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-six studies were included. Using bracing as the referent in the health care model, we observed that bracing was the preferred strategy at both incremental cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds. ORIF and IMN had higher overall effectiveness (0.917 QALYs and 0.913 QALYs, respectively) compared with bracing (0.877 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness of bracing was driven by a substantially lower overall cost. In the societal model-accounting for both health care and societal costs-the cost difference narrowed between bracing, ORIF, and IMN. Bracing remained the preferred strategy at the $50,000/QALY threshold; ORIF was preferred at the $100,000/QALY threshold. ORIF and IMN were comparable strategies across a range of probability values in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional bracing, with its low cost and satisfactory clinical outcomes, is often the most cost-effective strategy for humeral shaft fracture management. ORIF becomes preferable at the higher willingness-to-pay threshold when societal burden is considered. QALY values for ORIF and IMN were comparable.

Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Literature Review on Current Treatment Methods

In this review, we aim to provide a concise yet comprehensive summation of the assessment and management of humeral shaft fractures. These are uncommon but prevalent enough that they are part of any trauma surgeon's scope of practice. They have historically been treated using non-operative methods, including braces and casts, supported by published excellent results in the rate of the bone union. However, recently published studies challenge these results and suggest the outcomes might be better with surgery, but the complications of an operation such as infection and nerve injury can not be overlooked. In summary, non-surgical treatment is still the gold standard in the treatment of these fractures, but the indications for surgical management are now clearer and include early signs of delayed union and patients who are unable to have a brace fitted or are uncompliant. It is likely that these new developments will start to change practice, and therefore the treatment of humeral shaft fractures should be a topic of interest of any clinician who deals with them.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Humeral Shaft Nonunion: Bone Grafting Is Not Routinely Required and Avoids Donor Site Morbidity

OBJECTIVES

To document union rate, complications and patient-reported outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), with and without bone grafting (BG), for humeral diaphyseal nonunion after failed nonoperative management.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

From 2008 to 2017, 86 consecutive patients [mean age 59 years (range 17-86), 71% (n = 61/86) women] underwent nonunion ORIF (plate and screws) at a mean of 7 months postinjury (range 3-21.5). Eleven (13%) underwent supplementary BG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Union rate and complications for 83 patients (97%) at a mean of 10 months (3-61). Patient-reported outcomes (QuickDASH, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, SF-12, satisfaction) for 53 living, cognitively-intact patients (78%) at a mean of 4.9 years (0.3-9.2).

RESULTS

Ninety-three percent (n = 77/83) achieved union after nonunion ORIF. Complications included recalcitrant nonunion (7%, n = 6/83), iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (6%, n = 5/83), infection (superficial 7%, n = 6/83; deep 2%, n = 2/83), and iliac crest donor site morbidity (38%, n = 3/8). The union rate with BG was 78% (n = 7/9) and without was 95% (n = 70/74; P = 0.125), and was not associated with the nonunion type (atrophic 91%, n = 53/58; hypertrophic 96%, n = 24/25; P = 0.663). Median QuickDASH was 22.7 (0-95), EQ-5D 0.710 (-0.181-1), EQ-visual analog scale 80 (10-100), SF-12 physical component summary 41.9 (16-60.5), and mental component summary 52.6 (18.7-67.7). Nineteen percent (n = 10/53) were dissatisfied with their outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

ORIF for humeral diaphyseal nonunion was associated with a high rate of union. Routine BG was not required and avoided the risk of donor site morbidity. One in 5 patients were dissatisfied despite the majority achieving union.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Treatment of Midshaft Humerus Fractures Using Early Functional Bracing: Results and Prognostic Factors

Purpose Our study tests the hypothesis that a new radiographic measurement, the fracture displacement index (FDI), is associated with the prediction of successful conservative treatment, and investigates factors, that contribute to failure treatment. Methods This was a retrospective case series reporting the results of pragmatic treatment of midshaft humerus fractures using a humeral brace. Details regarding the patient demographics and fracture pattern were recorded. The outcome was measured as patient satisfaction, return to activities, and need for further treatment at a minimum of one year from the discharge date. Results Of the 33 surviving patients, who met the inclusion criteria, two subgroups were developed. The conservatively treated brace group (n=23, 70%) and the surgical group (n=10, 30%). The median age of brace group patients was 48.3 years, significantly less (p=0.0025) than the surgical (72 years). There were no significant differences in the rest of both group demographics. On the first available x-ray after the brace application, there was a significant difference in FDI (p=0.001) between groups. Residual angulation was significantly better for the surgical group. Skin breakdown was the most common complication, followed by forearm swelling. Stiffness was common in both groups.  Conclusion Patients with FDI near 50 younger than 60 years have better chances to proceed to union if treated with brace less than 24 hours after the injury. Patients with FDI larger than 100, older than 78, have a higher risk of requiring surgery. All patients should be counseled about the risk for skin complications and developing forearm swelling.

Humeral shaft fracture: a randomized controlled trial of nonoperative versus operative management (plate fixation)

Purpose

This randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the outcomes of humeral shaft–fracture management with the functional Sarmiento brace (nonoperative) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).

Methods

Sixty humeral shaft–fracture patients with a minimum age of 18 years were randomly assigned into two groups: operative treatment with open reduction–internal fixation (ORIF) or functional brace (Sarmiento). A similar postoperative rehabilitation program was applied for all subjects for the next 12 months. The outcomes of each method were measured in terms of nonunion rate, union time, “quick” Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scores, and rate of complications, such as malunion, infection, and radial nerve injury.

Results

The two groups had similar baseline characteristics, including age, sex, smoking status, and type and mechanism of fracture. The mean union time was about 4.8 weeks shorter in the ORIF group (13.9 weeks in operative group versus 18.7 weeks in nonoperative group), indicating a definite significant superiority (p=0.001) of ORIF management to functional Sarmiento bracing. However, a comparison of quick DASH scores revealed a borderline-significant difference between the groups (p=0.065). Additionally, we found that treatment of humeral shaft fractures using functional bracing was associated with slightly higher risk of nonunion; however this was not significant (p=0.492).

Conclusion

According to the present findings, there is remarkable superiority of ORIF over functional Sarmiento bracing in the management of patients with humeral shaft fracture.

Humeral shaft fractures: union outcomes in a large cohort

BACKGROUND

Humeral shaft fractures can be managed conservatively or operatively. Fracture characteristics were analyzed to identify patients who would benefit from early operative fixation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 126 consecutive humeral shaft fractures (2008-2015). Fractures were classified according to fracture type, location, separation, and comminution.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients, 96 were managed conservatively. In 54%, union occurred before 26 weeks, and 13% had delayed union after 26 weeks, whereas 33% did not achieve union. Of 30 patients managed surgically, 63% had union before 26 weeks, 33% had delayed union, and 4% did not achieve union. A statistically significant difference favored operative management. This difference was maintained in specific fracture patterns (simple and spiral fractures) and locations (proximal- or distal-third humeral fractures). Early surgery had a significantly higher union rate than delayed surgery. No difference was present between plate and nail fixation regarding union or neurologic injury. Separation of fragments, open injury, and comminution were not associated with nonunion. A psychiatric history (including psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, multiple involuntary psychiatric admissions, or dementia) was significantly associated with nonunion after conservative management (P = .016). Two patients with dementia died after their conservatively managed fractures progressed to open injuries.

CONCLUSION

This study found high rates of delayed union and nonunion with conservative management. Patients with a significant psychiatric history may benefit from consideration of operative intervention.

Minimally Invasive Plating Osteosynthesis in the Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether minimally invasive plating osteosynthesis (MIPO) or other operative interventions is superior in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the clinical outcomes of MIPO and other operative interventions in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify all available studies comparing clinical outcomes between patients receiving MIPO and other operative interventions. The weight mean difference (WMD) was pooled to compare the operative time, union time, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI).The risk ratio (RR) was pooled to compare the union rate, and incidence of complications. Pooled estimates were calculated by using a fixed-effects model or a randomized-effects model, according to the heterogeneity among studies.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Our results suggest that both MIPO and other operative interventions can achieve similar union time, UCLA score, MEPI, and union rate. However, MIPO is associated with better outcomes including shorter operation time, and lower incidence of radial nerve injury.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this meta-analysis demonstrated that, MIPO is effective but safer than other operative interventions in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture. However, due to the potential limitations in this meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes using appropriate blinding methods are needed to confirm these findings.

The impact of residual angulation on patient reported functional outcome scores after non-operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures

PURPOSE

To determine if residual angular deformity following non-operative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures correlates with patient reported outcomes.

METHODS

Skeletally mature patients treated by one of three orthopaedic trauma surgeons at a level 1 trauma centre with humeral shaft fractures treated without surgery were retrospectively identified over a 7 year period. After inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 patients were eligible for the study. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH); Simple Shoulder Test (SST); General health questionnaire SF-12 physical component summary (SF-12 PCS) and mental component summary (SF-12 MCS) were obtained from study participants. Healed angular deformity was obtained from patient charts.

RESULTS

Thirty two subjects were successfully recruited (32/42 or 76%). Average age was 45 ± 22 with average study follow up being 47 ± 29 months. Average outcome scores were DASH 12 ± 16, SST 10 ± 2.7, SF-12 PCS 50 ± 7.9, and SF-12 MCS 54 ± 8.8. Healed sagittal plane deformity averaged 8 ± 5.7° [range 0-18], and 15 ± 7.9° [range 2-27] in the coronal plane. There was no correlation between residual sagittal or coronal plane deformity and outcome scores (DASH and SST for both p>0.05). Patients with at least 20° (n=7; 22%) of healed coronal deformity had similar outcomes to those with <20° ([DASH (13.2 ± 18.7 vs 11.7 ± 16.1; p=0.83]; [SST (10.3 ± 2 vs 10.0 ± 2.9; p=0.81]). Higher SF-12 PCS and MCS scores correlated with better DASH and SST scores (p<0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Residual angular deformity ranging from 0 to 18° in the sagittal plane and from 2 to 27° in the coronal plane after non-operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures had no correlation with patient reported DASH scores, SST scores, or patient satisfaction. Instead, overall physical and mental health status as measured by the SF-12 significantly correlated with patient reported outcomes.

Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures: Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation

Background:

The optimal technique for operative fixation of humeral shaft fractures remains controversial and warrants research.

Objectives:

The purpose of the current study was to compare the functional and clinical outcomes of conventional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in patients with fractures in two-third distal humeral shaft.

Patients and Methods:

In the current prospective case-control study, 65 patients with humeral shaft fractures were treated using ORIF (33 patients) or MIPO (32 patients). Time of surgery, time of union, incidence of varus deformity and complications were compared between the two groups. Also, the university of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale and Mayo Elbow performance score (MEPS) were used to compare the functional outcomes between the two groups.

Results:

The median of union time was shorter in the MIPO group (4 months versus 5 months). The time of surgery and functional outcomes based on the UCLA and MEPS scores were the same. The incidence of varus deformity was more than 5° and was higher and the incidence of nonunion, infection and iatrogenic radial nerve injury were lower in the MIPO group; however, the differences were not significant.

Conclusions:

Due to the shorter union time, to some extent less complication rate and comparable functional and clinical results, the authors recommend to use the MIPO technique in treating the mid-distal humeral shaft fracture.