Cerclage wiring and intramedullary nailing, a helpful and safe option specially in proximal fractures. A multicentric study

Complications following intramedullary nailing of proximal humerus and humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to systematically review complications arising from intramedullary nailing (IMN) of proximal and humeral shaft fractures. This study hypothesized that there would be a low rate of complications and revision among patients treated with IMN for humerus fractures.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search in the PubMed database based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they reported on outcomes following the use of intramedullary nails for proximal humerus fractures or humeral shaft fractures. Variables that were collected included complications, visual analog scale pain scores and revision operations.

RESULTS

Overall, 179 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 7984 shoulders. The average age of patients in this study was 55.2 years and 60.7% of patients were female. The mean follow-up was 16.6 months. The overall complication rate for all fractures treated with intramedullary nails was 18.9%, and the overall revision rate was 6.8%. Among the complications were fracture complications (7.5%), hardware complications (7.2%), soft tissue complications (1.8%), neurovascular complications (1.6%), and infection (0.8%). Four-part proximal humerus fractures (52.9%) and open fractures (36.7%) had the highest rates of complication. Among the reasons for revision were hardware removal or replacement (5.0%), conversion to arthroplasty (0.6%), and other (1.2%). The mean visual analog scale pain score at last follow-up was 1.6.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there was a moderate rate of complications but low rate of revision following IMN of humerus fractures. Open fractures and 4-part proximal humerus fractures had the highest complication rates.

Assessment of Complication Risk in the Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of 4019 Patients

(1) Background: The treatment of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) is debated controversially. Current clinical knowledge is mainly based on small single-center cohorts. The goal of this study was to evaluate the predictability of risk factors for complications after the treatment of a PHF in a large clinical cohort in a multicentric setting. (2) Methods: Clinical data of 4019 patients with PHFs were retrospectively collected from 9 participating hospitals. Risk factors for local complications of the affected shoulder were assessed using bi- and multivariate analyses. (3) Results: Fracture complexity with n = 3 or more fragments, cigarette smoking, age over 65 years, and female sex were identified as predictable individual risk factors for local complications after surgical therapy as well as the combination of female sex and smoking and the combination of age 65 years or older and ASA class 2 or higher. (4) Conclusion: Humeral head preserving reconstructive surgical therapy should critically be evaluated for patients with the risk factors abovementioned.

Spatial Anatomy of the Radial Nerve in the Extended Deltopectoral Approach

The goal of this study was to define safe zones to prevent radial nerve injury in an extended deltopectoral approach. Relative distances of the upper margin (UMRN) and lower margin (LMRN) of the radial nerve to the proximal and distal borders of the pectoralis major and deltoid insertions were measured in 20 cadaveric arms. Four proximal humeral zones were identified (zone I, proximal border of the pectoralis major tendon to the proximal border of the deltoid tendon; zone II, proximal border of the deltoid tendon to the distal border of the pectoralis major tendon; zone III, distal border of the pectoralis major tendon to the distal border of the deltoid tendon; and zone IV, distal to the distal border of the deltoid tendon). On fluoroscopic measurement, mean distances between the UMRN and the proximal border of the pectoralis major tendon and the proximal border of the deltoid tendon were 71.6±2.1 mm and 26.2±2.5 mm, respectively. The incidence of the radial nerve in the spiral groove within each defined zone was as follows: zone I, 0%; zone II, 50%; zones III and IV, 100%. There was a significant association between anatomic zone and radial nerve entry into the spiral groove, χ²(3, N=88)=64.53, P<.001. The proximal border of the pectoralis major tendon to the proximal border of the deltoid tendon (zone I) is a safe location to avoid injury to the radial nerve. We recommend placing cerclage wires proximal to zone I from lateral to medial to avoid entrapment of the radial nerve. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e31-e37.].

The standardized exploration of the radial nerve during humeral shaft fixation reduces the incidence of iatrogenic palsy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to determine if a standardized protocol for radial nerve handling during humeral shaft repair reduces the incidence of iatrogenic nerve palsy post operatively.

METHODS

Seventy-three patients were identified who underwent acute or reconstructive humeral shaft repair with radial nerve exploration as part of the primary procedure for either humeral shaft fracture or nonunion. All patients exhibited intact radial nerve function pre-operatively. A retrospective chart review and analysis identified patients who developed a secondary radial nerve palsy post-operatively. In each case, the radial nerve was identified and mobilized for protection, regardless of whether the implant necessitated the extensile exposure.

RESULTS

Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA guidelines and included 23 Type 12A, 11 Type 12B, and 3 Type 12C. Eight patients had periprosthetic fractures and 28 fractures could not be classified. All patients in the cohort were fixed with locking plates. Surgery was indicated for 36 patients with humeral nonunions and 37 patients with acute humeral shaft fractures. Of the 73 patients, 2 (2.7%) developed radial nerve palsy following surgery, one from the posterior approach and one from the anterolateral approach. Both patients exhibited complete recovery of radial nerve function by 6-month follow-up. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in any demographic or surgical details between those with and without radial nerve injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Nerve exploration identification and protection leads to a low incidence of transient radial nerve palsy compared to the rate reported in the current literature (2.7% compared to 6-24%). Thus, radial nerve exploration and mobilization should be considered when approaching the humeral shaft for acute fracture and nonunion repairs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Radial nerve palsy associated with closed humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of 1758 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Humeral shaft fractures are often associated with radial nerve palsy (RNP) (8-16%). The primary aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence of primary and secondary RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to compare the recovery rate of primary RNP and the incidence of secondary RNP between operative and non-operative treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in 'Trip Database', 'Embase' and 'PubMed' to identify original studies reporting on RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The Coleman Methodology Score was used to grade the quality of the studies. The incidence and recovery of RNP, fracture characteristics and treatment characteristics were extracted. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare operative versus non-operative treatment.

RESULTS

Forty studies reporting on 1758 patients with closed humeral shaft fractures were included. The incidence of primary RNP was 10%. There was no difference in the recovery rate of primary RNP when comparing operative treatment with radial nerve exploration (98%) versus non-operative treatment (91%) (p = 0.29). The incidence of secondary RNP after operative and non-operative treatment was 4% and 0.4%, respectively (p < 0.01).

INTERPRETATION

One-in-ten patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture has an associated primary RNP, of which > 90% recovers without the need of (re-)intervention. No beneficial effect of early exploration on the recovery of primary RNP could be demonstrated when comparing patients managed non-operatively with those explored early. Patients managed operatively for closed humeral shaft fractures have a higher risk of developing secondary RNP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review.