Conservative vs. operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

Chest wall soft tissue thickness is associated with humeral shaft non-union: A radiographic study

Background

Anecdotally, upper truncal obesity and large breasts have often been associated with inferior outcomes from non-operative management of diaphyseal humerus fractures. However, this assertion is without basis in the literature.

Aims

To produce radiographic measurements of chest wall soft tissue thickness (STT) and determine association with non-union in diaphyseal humerus fractures.

Methods

Two hundred and seventeen consecutive non-operative humeral shaft fractures were included. Radiographic STT measurements were taken at three standardised points (upper, middle and lower) using a simple reproducible method, with ratios derived (dividing these figures by the mid-humerus diameter). Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to assess association with non-union.

Results

There were 58 (26.7%) cases of non-union. On multivariable analysis, the middle (odds ratio (OR) 1.39, p <  0.001) and lower (OR 1.23, p = 0.009) STT measurements were independently associated with non-union. Additionally, the middle (OR 1.85, p < 0.001) and lower (OR 1.47, p < 0.001) STT ratios were independently associated with non-union. A receiver operating characteristic curve determined a threshold value of a middle STT ratio of ≥ 3 (OR 3.73, p < 0.001, sensitivity 69.0%, specificity 62.3%), which was independently associated with non-union.

Conclusion

Chest wall STT is independently associated with humeral shaft non-union. Threshold values can assist in decision making for these fractures.

Cement augmentation for proximal humerus fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear if elderly patients treated with plate osteosynthesis for proximal humerus fractures benefit from cement augmentation. This meta-analysis aims to compare cement augmentation to no augmentation regarding healing, complications, and functional results.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. The primary outcome is overall complication rate. Stratified analyses were performed for types of complication (implant-related or systemic). Secondary outcomes include re-interventions, hospital stay, operation time, functional scores, and general quality of life.

RESULTS

Five observational studies and one randomized controlled trial with a total of 541 patients were included. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the augmented group (15.6% versus 25.4%, OR 0.54 (95%CI 0.33-0.87)). This was caused by a reduction of implant-related complications (10.4% vs. 19.9%, OR 0.49 (95%CI 0.28, 0.88)). No difference in humeral head necrosis was found. Data on re-intervention, hospital stay, and operation time was limited but did not show significant differences. No impact on functional scores and general quality of life was detected.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that cement augmentation may reduce overall complications, mainly by preventing implant-related complications. No difference was detected regarding need for re-intervention, functional scores, general quality of life, and hospital stay. This is the first meta-analysis on this topic. It remains to be seen whether conclusions will hold when more and better-quality data becomes available.

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.

Anterior medial minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures shows superior early shoulder and elbow function compared to locking compression plate: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Humeral shaft fractures are a common injury of the upper limb, with the primary surgical treatment modality being the locking compression plate (LCP) technique. The advent of Anterior medial minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) technology has led to its gradual implementation in clinical practice. However, the efficacy and long-term outcomes of MIPO require further investigation. The objective of this study is to compare the therapeutic effects of LCP and MIPO in the management of humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

The present study conducted a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with humeral shaft fractures between June 2016 and December 2019. The patients were divided into MIPO and LCP groups based on the different surgical methods. The study analyzed the length of hospital stay, radiation exposure, operative time, and postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores using statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The MIPO group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay compared to the LCP group (length of hospital stay: 5.39 ± 2.23 days vs 12.00 ± 7.19 days, P < 0.001). All patients achieved callus formation after surgery. However, the MIPO group had significantly more radiation exposures than the LCP group (45.96 ± 19.49 vs 5.33 ± 2.20, P < 0.001). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference observed in the time from admission to surgery, operative time,and healing time between the two groups (the time from admission to surgery: P = 0.593; operative time: P = 0.407; Healing time: P = 0.664). During the postoperative follow-up, the MIPO group exhibited significantly lower 6-week and 3-month DASH scores compared to the LCP group (6-week: 34.17 ± 12.16 vs 45.65 ± 22.94, P = 0.028; 3-month: 17.43 ± 11.70 vs 30.12 ± 9.80, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the 6-month and 12-month DASH scores between the two groups (6-month: P = 0.787; 12-month: P = 0.058).

CONCLUSION

The MIPO technique provides better short-term functional recovery of the shoulder and elbow compared to the LCP technique in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures, while ensuring equivalent surgical healing.

Management of Humeral Shaft Fracture: A Network Meta-Analysis of Individual Treatment Modalities

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a network meta-analysis of level I and II evidence comparing different management techniques to define the optimum treatment method for humeral shaft fractures (HSFs).

METHODS

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was screened from 2010 to 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were evidence level I or II studies comparing nonoperative and/or operative repair techniques including open reduction internal fixation plate osteosynthesis (ORIF-Plate), minimally invasive percutaneous plating (MIPO), and intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation for the management of HSFs (OTA/AO 12A, B, C).

DATA EXTRACTION

The risk of bias and methodologic quality of evidence were assessed according to the guidelines designed by the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and Cochrane Methods Bias Group.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Network meta-analysis was conducted with a frequentist approach with a random-effects model using the netmeta package version 0.9-6 in R.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies (1908 patients) were included. MIPO resulted in the lowest complication rate (2.1%) when compared with ORIF-Plate (16.1%) [odds ratio (OR), 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.04-0.49]. MIPO resulted in the lowest nonunion rate (0.65%) compared with all management techniques (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.98), whereas Non-Op resulted in the highest (15.87%) (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.98-6.11). MIPO demonstrated the lowest rate of postoperative radial nerve palsy overall (2.2%) and demonstrated a significantly lower rate compared with ORIF-Plate (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.71, P = 0.02). IMN resulted in the lowest rate of deep infection (1.1%) when compared with ORIF-Plate (8.6%; P = 0.013). MIPO resulted in a significantly lower Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (3.86 ± 5.2) and higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (98.2 ± 1.4) than ORIF-Plate (19.5 ± 9.0 and 60.0 ± 5.4, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study support that surgical management results in better postoperative functional outcomes, leads to higher union rates, reduces fracture healing time, reduces revision rate, and decreases malunion rates in patients with HSFs. In addition, MIPO resulted in statistically higher union rates, lowest complication rate, lowest rate of postoperative radial nerve palsy, and lower intraoperative time while resulting in better postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores when compared with nonoperative and operative (ORIF and IMN) treatment modalities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Augmented Fixation in Transverse Midshaft Humerus Fractures Using a Nitinol Staple: Surgical Technique and Case Series

Maintaining the reduction of a transverse humeral shaft fracture can be particularly challenging while applying a compression plate for definitive fixation. Nitinol compression staples are being increasingly utilized in orthopedic surgery due to their unique ability to apply continuous compression between staple legs at body temperature. We have found them to be particularly useful in the maintenance of the reduction of transverse humeral shaft fractures before compression plate application. This simple technique allows for the removal of reduction clamps and precise plate placement. We describe our technique for using nitinol compression staples to augment fracture fixation in transverse humeral shaft fractures as well as our experience using this technique in a case series of 4 patients.

The outcome of nonoperative treatment for adult humeral shaft fractures using a U-shaped slab in resource-limited settings: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Humeral shaft fractures, constituting 3-5% of musculoskeletal injuries, are commonly managed conservatively using functional braces. However, this approach may not be feasible in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to evaluate the functional outcomes of nonoperative treatment for humeral shaft fractures in adults utilizing a U-shaped slab.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted from August 2021 to August 2022 involving 16-year-old and older individuals who received nonsurgical treatment for humeral shaft fractures at public tertiary hospitals in Rwanda. The assessment focused on various functional outcomes, including alignment, union rate, range of motion, return to activities of daily living, and DASH score.

RESULTS

The study included 73 participants, predominantly males (73.9%), with a median age of 33 years. The union rate was high at 89.04%, and 10.96% experienced delayed union. Radial nerve palsy occurred in 4.11% of patients, but all the patients fully recovered within three months. Despite angular deformities during healing in the majority of participants, these deformities did not significantly impact functional outcomes. According to the international classification of disabilities, 77% of participants achieved a good functional grade.

CONCLUSION

The conservative U-shaped slab method was effective at managing humeral shaft fractures. However, optimal results necessitate careful participant selection and comprehensive rehabilitation education. Implementing these measures can improve the overall success of nonoperative management.

Comparing the Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Humeral Shaft Fractures by Treatment Type

PURPOSE

Humeral shaft fractures are common orthopedic injuries, representing 1-5% of all fractures. There is conflicting literature regarding the superiority of operative versus nonoperative treatment of these fractures. The purpose of this study was to examine functional outcomes and time to radiographic union in humeral shaft fractures with the hypothesis that both would be improved in patients treated operatively relative to those treated nonoperatively.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined patients with humeral shaft fractures treated at a single large healthcare system between 2010 and 2020. A chart and radiograph review were performed to collect information on demographics, fracture, treatment, and outcome information. These measures were compared between patients treated operatively and nonoperatively.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventeen adult patients meeting inclusion criteria were identified; 233 were treated nonoperatively, and 284 were treated operatively. The mean patient age was 50.2 years in those who underwent surgery relative to 59.9 years in those treated without surgery (P<0.001). Operatively-treated patients had significantly faster time to radiographic union at a median of 113 days compared to a median of 161 days in nonoperatively-treated patients (P=0.001). The operative group was made weight-bearing as tolerated significantly faster than the nonoperative group (84 days versus 98 days, respectively, P=0.002). No statistically significant difference was seen between the two treatment groups in rates of complications or range of motion at the time of radiographic union. However, patients who underwent surgery were found to be up to two times more likely to achieve full shoulder forward elevation by the time of their final follow-up than those treated without surgery (P=0.011).

CONCLUSION

Patients with humeral shaft fractures treated operatively have faster time to union, earlier weight bearing, and no change in the rate of complications compared to patients treated nonoperatively.

Ultrasound assessment of humeral shaft nonunion risk: a feasibility and proof of concept study

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility and reliability of ultrasound in the assessment of humeral shaft fracture healing and estimate the accuracy of 6wk ultrasound in predicting nonunion.

METHODS

Twelve adults with a non-operatively managed humeral shaft fracture were prospectively recruited and underwent ultrasound scanning at 6wks and 12wks post-injury. Seven blinded observers evaluated sonographic callus appearance to determine intra- and inter-observer reliability. Nonunion prediction accuracy was estimated by comparing images for patients that united (n = 10/12) with those that developed a nonunion (n = 2/12).

RESULTS

The mean scan duration was 8 min (5-12) and all patients tolerated the procedure. At 6wks and 12wks, sonographic callus (SC) was present in 11 patients (10 united, one nonunion) and sonographic bridging callus (SBC) in seven (all united). Ultrasound had substantial intra- (weighted kappa: 6wk 0.75; 12wk 0.75) and inter-observer reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 6wk 0.60; 12wk 0.76). At 6wks, the absence of SC demonstrated sensitivity 50%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100% and negative predictive value (NPV) 91% in nonunion prediction (overall accuracy 92%). The absence of SBC demonstrated sensitivity 100%, specificity 70%, PPV 40% and NPV 100% in nonunion prediction (overall accuracy 75%). Of three patients at risk of nonunion (Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures < 8), one had SBC on 6wk ultrasound (that subsequently united) and the others had non-bridging/absent SC (both developed nonunion).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound assessment of humeral shaft fracture healing was feasible, reliable and may predict nonunion. Ultrasound could be useful in defining nonunion risk among patients with reduced radiographic callus formation.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Midshaft humeral fracture - Operative or nonoperative treatment?

HISTORY

A 49yo male is involved in a fall while skiing. He was brought off the ski hill and was found to have suffered a closed fracture of the left midshaft humerus. Distal neurovascular exam was normal. He is otherwise unhurt (Figs. 1 and 2). PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: previous history of back surgery for a disc problem when he was 35yo. Has been told that he has high blood pressure but does nothing for this. He is Right hand dominant. SOCIAL HISTORY: married with one child and works as an equipment operator for a crane company; he is a social drinker and smokes 1pack per day for 30 years. Has a history of using some recreational drugs but none for 10 years.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Humeral Shaft Fracture Management and Its Outcomes

Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated a sudden and drastic shift in patient management throughout the healthcare system, to curb the spread of the disease and deal with resource limitations. Many surgical cases were canceled or delayed with only the most urgent and emergent cases taken up for treatment. It is unknown if and how these alterations affected patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare time to fracture care and outcomes between patients treated for humeral shaft fractures prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated during the pandemic. We hypothesized that the pandemic cohort would have a prolonged time to fracture care and worse outcomes than the pre-pandemic cohort. Materials and methods This was a retrospective cohort study performed within a single healthcare system. All humeral shaft fractures treated from March to June 2019 (pre-pandemic cohort) and March to June 2020 (pandemic cohort) were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes and ICD-10-CM codes as well as Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Data on demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment, and outcomes were collected via chart and radiograph review. Outcomes analyzed included time to being made weight-bearing as tolerated (WBAT), radiographic union, and final follow-up; range of motion (ROM) at radiographic union and final follow-up; and rate of complications. Results The pre-pandemic cohort (n=19) was significantly younger with a mean age of 29 years than the pandemic cohort (n=17) with a mean age of 49 years (p=0.010). There were no other significant differences in demographics, fracture characteristics, or treatment type between the groups. Time to fracture care was not significantly different in the pre-pandemic cohort (five days) versus the pandemic cohort (four days). Time to being made WBAT, radiographic union, and final follow-up were not significantly different between the pre-pandemic (86, 113, and 98 days) and the pandemic cohorts (77, 106, and 89.5 days). ROM measurements in abduction at radiographic union were significantly different between the cohorts: in the pre-pandemic cohort, 100% of patients reached greater than 160 degrees; in the pandemic cohort, only 16.7% of patients reached greater than 160 degrees (p=0.048). There was a non-significant decrease in the proportion of patients who achieved the maximal category of ROM measurements in forward elevation and extension at radiographic union and abduction, forward elevation, and extension at final follow-up, as well as a non-significant increase in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at final follow-up between cohorts. There were no significant differences in the rate of complications. Conclusions Despite limited resources, reduced operating room availability, and increased utilization of virtual visits due to the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with humeral shaft fractures may not have faced delays in fracture care or worse outcomes compared to the pre-pandemic period. The pandemic cohort may have experienced significantly decreased ROM compared to the pre-pandemic cohort, which may reflect the decreased availability of physical therapy services and overall decreased activity levels due to the quarantine orders. However, we could not identify any other significant differences in the type of treatment, pain, complications, or time to union.

[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.

Functional and Clinical Outcomes After Plate Osteosynthesis Versus Intramedullary Nailing of a Humeral Shaft Fracture: The Results of the HUMMER Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Plate osteosynthesis (referred to throughout as plating) and intramedullary nailing (referred to throughout as nailing) are the most common operative strategies for humeral shaft fractures. However, it is undecided which treatment is more effective. This study aimed to compare functional and clinical outcomes of these treatment strategies. We hypothesized that plating would result in an earlier recovery of shoulder function and fewer complications.

METHODS

From October 23, 2012, to October 3, 2018, adults with a humeral shaft fracture, OTA/AO type 12A or 12B, were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Patients were treated with plating or nailing. Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Constant-Murley score, ranges of motion of the shoulder and elbow, radiographic healing, and complications until 1 year. Repeated-measure analysis was done with correction for age, sex, and fracture type.

RESULTS

Of the 245 included patients, 76 were treated with plating and 169 were treated with nailing. Patients in the plating group were younger, with a median age of 43 years compared with 57 years for the nailing group (p < 0.001). The mean DASH score after plating improved faster over time, but did not differ significantly from the score after nailing at 12 months (11.7 points [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6 to 15.7 points]) for plating and 11.2 points [95% CI, 8.3 to 14.0 points] for nailing). The Constant-Murley score and shoulder abduction, flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation displayed a significant treatment effect (p treatment ≤ 0.001), in favor of plating. The plating group had 2 implant-related complications, whereas the nailing group had 24, including 13 nail protrusions and 8 screw protrusions. Plating resulted in more postoperative temporary radial nerve palsy (8 patients [10.5%] compared with 1 patient [0.6%]; p < 0.001) and a trend toward fewer nonunions (3 patients [5.7%] compared with 16 patients [11.9%]; p = 0.285) than nailing.

CONCLUSIONS

Plating of a humeral shaft fracture in adults results in faster recovery, especially of shoulder function. Plating was associated with more temporary nerve palsies, but fewer implant-related complications and surgical reinterventions, than nailing. Despite heterogeneity in implants and surgical approach, plating seems to be the preferred treatment option for these fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Evaluation of Humeral Shaft Fracture Outcomes by Treatment Method: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Based on Comparison Studies

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate various outcomes of humeral shaft fractures treated with different treatment methods, which included functional bracing, open reduction and internal fixation, intramedullary nailing, and locked compression plate.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using research databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Keywords relating to treatment of humeral shaft fractures were used, and comparison studies that reported patient characteristics and outcomes, including nonunion, malunion, function scores, and complications, were included. One hundred fourteen records were screened, with 18 studies ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Treatment groups were consolidated into brace or surgery and then further categorized into subgroups based on surgical technique used. Postoperative events, complications, and functional scores were compared among the treatment groups. Statistical analysis for this study was conducted using Review Manager 5.3, with a standard p-value of ≤0.05 for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included in this review with a total of 706 patients. Z-tests showed that risks of revision, nonunion, and malunion were higher in the brace treatment group compared with the surgical treatment group (p < 0.0001, <0.0001, 0.004, respectively). Risk of infection was expectedly higher in the surgical group compared with the brace group (p = 0.04). Radial nerve injury rates were also higher in the unspecified surgical group compared with the brace group (p = 0.01). In the surgical group, the mean Constant shoulder score was also significantly higher than that in the brace group (p = 0.004). When comparing the nail and plate groups, Z-tests revealed higher risks of delayed unions and other complications in the nail group (p = 0.04 and 0.001, respectively) but higher risk of infection in the plate group (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with functional braces may be associated with a lower incidence of infection and nerve injury when compared with operative treatment methods. However, nonoperative treatment may also come with higher risks of revision, nonunion, and malunion than the many available surgical modalities. Operative management with either intramedullary nail or plate has shown to be a reliable method of management with reasonable outcomes for humeral shaft fractures. While the nail group had higher risk of delayed unions and other complications, the plate group had higher risk of infections. Both nail and plate surgical treatments have shown to result in high union rates and should be considered by the surgeon on a case-by-case basis when treating humeral shaft fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

Humeral shaft fractures: a practical guide to assessment and management

Fractures of the humeral shaft represent roughly 5% of all fractures. They occur in an approximate bimodal distribution, typically affecting young adults following trauma and older females after low energy falls in the presence of osteoporosis. Humeral shaft fractures are associated with pain, temporary disability and a reduced quality of life for the duration of treatment. Treatment goals are directed towards achieving and maintaining a fracture environment conducive to healing, pain relief and early restoration of function. While most humeral shaft fractures are conservatively managed, operative management is indicated in certain circumstances. This article provides an overview of these fractures, including their initial management approach and definitive treatment.

Nonunion of conservatively treated humeral shaft fractures is not associated with anatomic location and fracture pattern

INTRODUCTION

Humeral shaft fractures make up 1-3% of all fractures and are most often treated nonoperatively; rates of union have been suggested to be greater than 85%. It has been postulated that proximal third fractures are more susceptible to nonunion development; however, current evidence is conflicting and presented in small cohorts. It is our hypothesis that anatomic site of fracture and fracture pattern are not associated with development of nonunion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, 147 consecutive patients treated nonoperatively for a humeral shaft fracture were assessed for development of nonunion during their treatment course. Their charts were reviewed for demographic and radiographic parameters such as age, sex, current tobacco use, diabetic comorbidity, fracture location, fracture pattern, AO/OTA classification, and need for intervention for nonunion.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven patients with 147 nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were eligible for this study and included: 39 distal, 65 middle, and 43 proximal third fractures. One hundred and twenty-six patients healed their fractures by a mean 16 ± 6.4 weeks. Of the 21 patients who developed a nonunion, two were of the distal third, 10 of the middle third, and nine were of the proximal third. In a binomial logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in age, sex, tobacco use, diabetic comorbidity, fracture pattern, anatomic location, and OTA fracture classification between patients in the union and nonunion cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture pattern and anatomic location of nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were not related to development of fracture nonunion.

Compare the clinical value of two minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical value between locating radial nerve (RN) guided by Color Doppler ultrasonography and posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve (PACN) in the posterior humeral approach.

METHODS

The five fresh adult cadavers (ten upper arms) were selected to compare the two methods of locating the RN in the posterior humeral approach (guided by ultrasound and PACN) by measuring the operation time, the length of incision, and the area of subcutaneous free. And the comparison between the two groups was statistically analyzed by paired t-test.

RESULTS

The results of this study demonstrated that the length of incision and the area of subcutaneous free in the ultrasound group were smaller than that in the PACN group (P < 0.05), while the operation time was just the opposite (P < 0.05). However, after excluding the time of ultrasound location, the operation time in the ultrasound group was shorter than that in the PANC group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The RN can be quickly and safely exposed by both methods. The ultrasound approach requires a long learning curve, but is more minimally invasive and can help determine whether the intraoperative nerve is compressed by the plate. And the PACN method requires a longer incision and a wider area of subcutaneous free, while specialized equipment and professional training for surgeons are not required. In a word, these two methods have advantages and disadvantages, so they should be selected based on the exact situation.

Natural experiments for orthopaedic trauma research: An introduction

Natural experiments are observational studies of medical treatments in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators, arguably resembling experimental randomisation. Natural experiments in the field of orthopaedic trauma research are scarce. However, they have great potential due to the process governing treatment allocation and the existence of opposing treatment strategies between hospitals or between regions as a result of local education, conviction, or cultural and socio-economic factors. Here, the possibilities and opportunities of natural experiments in the orthopaedic trauma field are discussed. Potential solutions are presented to improve the validity of natural experiments and how to assess the credibility of such studies. Above all, it is meant to spark a discussion about its role within the field of orthopaedic trauma research.

Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Management of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to compare surgical and nonsurgical management for adults with humeral shaft fractures in terms of patient-reported upper limb function, health-related quality of life, radiographic outcomes, and complications.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry, and OpenGrey (Repository for Grey Literature in Europe) were searched in September 2021. All published prospective randomized trials comparing surgical and nonsurgical management of humeral shaft fractures in adults were included. Of 715 studies identified, five were included in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Pooled data were analyzed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 292 patients (mean age 41 [18 to 83] years, 67% male). Surgery was associated with superior Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley scores at 6 months (mean DASH difference 7.6, P = 0.01; mean Constant-Murley difference 8.0, P = 0.003), but there was no difference at 1 year (DASH, P = 0.30; Constant-Murley, P = 0.33). No differences in health-related quality of life or pain scores were found. Surgery was associated with a lower risk of nonunion (0.7% versus 15.7%; odds ratio [OR] 0.13, P = 0.004). The number needed to treat with surgery to avoid one nonunion was 7. Surgery was associated with a higher risk of transient radial nerve palsy (17.4% versus 0.7%; OR 8.23, P = 0.01) but not infection (OR 3.57, P = 0.13). Surgery was also associated with a lower risk of reintervention (1.4% versus 19.3%; OR 0.14, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery may confer an early functional advantage to adults with humeral shaft fractures, but this is not sustained beyond 6 months. The lower risk of nonunion should be balanced against the higher risk of transient radial nerve palsy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Vascularised versus non-vascularised bone graft for scaphoid nonunion: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and comparative studies

Background

Numerous studies have investigated surgical techniques for vascularised bone graft (VBG) for scaphoid nonunion; however, their efficacies remain unclear. Thus, to estimate the union rate of VBG for scaphoid nonunion, we performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search formula was as follows: ((scaphoid nonunion) OR (scaphoid pseudarthrosis)) AND (bone graft). Only RCTs were used in the primary analysis, and comparative studies, including RCTs, in the secondary analysis. The primary outcome was nonunion rate. We compared the outcome between VBG and non-vascularised bone graft (NVBG), pedicled VBG and NVBG, and free VBG and NVBG.

Results

This study included a total of 4 RCTs (263 patients) and 12 observational studies (1411 patients). In the meta-analyses of both RCTs only and RCTs and other comparative studies, no significant difference in nonunion rate was found between VBG and NVBG (summary odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-1.52 and summary OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.12), respectively. The nonunion rates of pedicled VBG, free VBG, and NVBG were 15.0%, 10.2%, and 17.8%, respectively, and no significant difference was found.

Conclusions

Our results indicated that the postoperative union rate in NVBG is similar to that in VBG; thus, NVBG could be the first choice of treatment for scaphoid nonunion.

Epidemiology of 936 humeral shaft fractures in a large Finnish trauma center

BACKGROUND

Humeral shaft fractures are relatively common injuries and are classified according to location and fracture morphology. Epidemiological studies improve understanding of injury patterns and lay foundations for future research. There are only a few published larger epidemiological studies on humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of adult patients having sustained a humeral shaft fracture treated in the Helsinki University Hospital between 2006 and 2016. We recorded patient and fracture characteristics, timing and mechanism of injury, associated injuries, and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 914 patients (489 females, median age = 61.4 years; 425 males, median age = 50.4 years) with 936 fractures. Over 60% of these fractures were sustained from simple falls. The patient age distribution was bimodal, with highest fracture rates in elderly females and young males. We divided the fractures into typical traumatic, periprosthetic, and pathological fractures. Of the 872 typical traumatic fractures, 3.0% were open. In addition, there were 24 (2.6%) periprosthetic and 40 (4.3%) pathological fractures. An associated injury was found in 24% of patients, with primary radial nerve palsy (PRNP) being the most common (10%). PRNPs were more common in distal shaft fractures and high energy injuries. The 1-year mortality was 9.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the most common injury mechanism was a simple fall. The most common associated injury was PRNP. The observed bimodal fracture distribution is consistent with previous literature.

WHICH SURGICAL TREATMENT IS PREFERABLE IN HUMERAL DIAPHYSEAL FRACTURES? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Humeral diaphyseal fractures are very common. Many treatments have been proposed but the choice of the best one is often complex.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the proposed study is to analyze the data in the literature in order to define the risks, advantages and disadvantages of the alternative surgical treatments (anterograde/retrograde intramedullary nailing, ORIF, MIPO).

METHODS

PubMed / Medline and Google Scholar were searched for prospective randomized or case-control retrospective studies about surgical treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures with nailing, ORIF and MIPO, according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome considered was the fracture healing time by comparing nailing-ORIF, nailing-MIPO and ORIF-MIPO. Differences in the rate of post-operative complications, patient satisfaction, intra-operative blood loss and surgical time were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

506 studies were identified, but only 10 studies were valid for the systematic review. No differences between nailing, ORIF and MIPO were recorded in terms of healing and surgical times. Intra-operative blood loss was significantly higher during ORIF (p 0.024). No differences were found in the restoration of function evaluated using clinical scales. The rate of complications was 27.4% for nailing, 21.2% for ORIF and 13.8% for MIPO. The difference was statistically significant only by comparing nailing with MIPO (p 0.012), probably because anterograde nailing is more often correlated to shoulder impairment. ORIF was at higher risk of infection compared to nailing (p 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Humeral diaphyseal fractures require careful pre-operative planning, ensuring reduced healing time, less soft tissue damage and low rate of complications. The lower exposure of the fracture allows for excellent results with reduced bleeding and lower risk of complications.

Exploring patient experiences after treatment of humeral shaft fractures: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Humeral shaft fracture treatment can induce serious morbidities, and it is unclear how these morbidities impact patients. To gain in-depth knowledge, we explored how patients experience humeral shaft fractures and the subsequent treatment course.

METHOD

A qualitative study was performed using semi-structured individual interviews. A purposive sampling approach was conducted to recruit patients with traumatic isolated humeral shaft fractures; the patients' ages, genders, primary treatments, and complications varied. Data saturation was met after the data of 12 patients were analyzed using Malterud Systematic Text Condensation.

RESULTS

Eight women and four men with a median age of 48.5 years (range: 22-83 years) were interviewed. The median time from injury to interview was 12.5 months (range: 8-18 months). Ten out of twelve patients were treated non-surgically; of those ten, four patients experienced major complications from the primary treatment. During the analysis, five overarching themes appeared: expectations, physical changes, support and independence, psychological impact, and the specific treatment and recovery.

CONCLUSION

First, patients with humeral shaft fractures expressed frustration with treatment in the emergency department. Second, gross fracture movement and pain were central symptoms that led to the loss of basic capabilities. Third, patient preferences were included in the treatment decision-making process and could change throughout the treatment course. Fourth, patients required massive support to perform basic activities of daily living.

Routine fixation of humeral shaft fractures is cost-effective

Aims

The primary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the health economic implications of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) of < 8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion.

Methods

From 2008 to 2017, 215 patients (mean age 57 yrs (17 to 18), 61% female (n = 130/215)) with a nonoperatively managed humeral diaphyseal fracture were retrospectively identified. Union was achieved in 77% (n = 165/215) after initial nonoperative management, with 23% (n = 50/215) uniting after surgery for nonunion. The EuroQol five-dimension three-level health index (EQ-5D-3L) was obtained via postal survey. Multiple regression was used to determine the independent influence of patient, injury, and management factors upon the EQ-5D-3L. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was considered cost-effective.

Results

At a mean of 5.4 yrs (1.2 to 11.0), the mean EQ-5D-3L was 0.736 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.697 to 0.775). Adjusted analysis demonstrated the EQ-5D-3L was inferior among patients who united after nonunion surgery (β = 0.103; p = 0.032). Offering routine fixation to all patients to reduce the rate of nonunion would be associated with increased treatment costs of £1,542/patient, but would confer a potential EQ-5D-3L benefit of 0.120/patient over the study period. The ICER of routine fixation was £12,850/QALY gained. Selective fixation based on a RUSHU < 8 at six weeks post-injury would be associated with reduced treatment costs (£415/patient), and would confer a potential EQ-5D-3L benefit of 0.335 per ‘at-risk patient’.

Conclusion

Routine fixation for patients with humeral shaft fractures to reduce the rate of nonunion observed after nonoperative management appears to be a cost-effective intervention at five years post-injury. Selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion based on their RUSHU may confer even greater cost-effectiveness, given the potential savings and improvement in health-related quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):566–572.

Radial Nerve Paralysis in Diaphyseal Fractures of the Humerus

One of the most common complications associated with a diaphyseal humeral fracture is the development of a radial nerve injury. We conducted a study to analyze the degree of recovery and prognostic factors associated with radial nerve palsy in patients with diaphyseal humerus fractures. We retrospectively analyzed 28 patients who presented to the Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain, with a diaphyseal humerus fracture associated with radial nerve injury between 2010 and 2020. A total of 14.3% (n = 4) of the patients in our cohort had open fractures and 85.7% (n = 24) had closed fractures. There were no statistically significant differences between the type of treatment and the type of fracture (p = .13). There were also no significant differences between the type of treatment and recovery time (p = .42). There was a statistically significant difference (p = .04) in the mean recovery time for patients with preoperative radial nerve injuries (11.9 months) compared with patients who sustained a radial nerve injury secondary to surgical repair of the fracture (8.6 months). The difference in recovery time between patients with open and closed fractures was not statistically significant (p = .3). Results of the study showed that the type of fracture (i.e., open or closed) did not affect radial nerve palsy recovery time. Patients who sustain radial nerve injuries secondary to a surgical repair have a shorter recovery time than patients who sustain primary radial nerve injuries.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of humeral SHAFT fractures compared by a patient-reported outcome: the Scandinavian Humeral diAphyseal Fracture Trial (SHAFT)-a study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The outcome of non-surgical treatment is generally good, but the treatment course can be long and painful with approximately a quarter of the patients acquiring a nonunion. Both surgical and non-surgical treatment can have disabling consequences such as nerve injury, infection, and nonunion. The purpose of the study is to compare patient-reported outcomes after surgical and non-surgical treatment for humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) is planned with two study groups (SHAFT-Young and SHAFT-Elderly). A total of 287 eligible acute humeral shaft fractures are scheduled to be recruited and randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment with the option of early crossover due to delayed union. The surgical method within the allocation is decided by the surgeon. The primary outcome is the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at 52 weeks, and is assessor blinded. The secondary outcomes are DASH score, EQ-5D-5L, pain assessed by visual analog score, Constant-Murley score including elbow range of motion, and anchor questions collected at all timepoints throughout the trial. All complications will be reported including; infection, nerve or vascular injury, surgical revisions (implant malpositioning, hardware failure, aseptic loosening, and peri-implant fracture), major adverse cardiovascular events, and mortality.

DISCUSSION

The SHAFT trial is a pragmatic multicenter RCT, that will compare the effectiveness of the main strategies in humeral shaft fracture treatment. This will include a variety of fracture morphologies, while taking the dilemmas within the population into account by splitting the population by age and providing the orthopedic society with an interval for early crossover surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04574336 . Registered on 5 October 2020.

Similar Complication Rates for Humeral Shaft Fractures Treated With Humeral Nails Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Plating

Humeral shaft fractures account for an estimated 3% of all adult fractures. When operative treatment is indicated, intramedullary (IM) nailing and open reduction and internal fixation with plating are the 2 most common techniques. Early IM nails were associated with poor outcomes, but with advancements in nail design, patient outcomes have been improving with this technique. This study used a nationwide database to quantify and compare the rates of postoperative complications between IM nails and plating for humeral shaft fractures in a national population. An administrative database was queried from the beginning of 2010 to the second quarter of 2017 for patients undergoing IM nailing vs open reduction and internal fixation with a plate for humeral shaft fractures. Systemic complications, fracture complications, and mean prescribed morphine milligram equivalents were collected and compared with statistical analysis. The overall rate of complications was high for both IM nailing (30.8%) and plating (34.2%). Patients were at greater risk for radial nerve palsy and infection at 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year if they received plate fixation (P<.05). The plate cohort had a lower risk of rotator cuff repair for all periods (P<.05). Patients in the IM nail cohort had higher rates of hardware removal for all periods (P<.05). Both IM nails and plates have overall similar rates of complications, and either can be used for humeral shaft fractures, based on surgeon preference, skill, and consideration of minor differences in complications between these 2 treatments. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(3):156-162.].

Preoperative position and protection of radial nerve by B-ultrasound combined with MIPPO for treatment of middle-inferior humerus fractures

Background and purpose

Open reduction and internal fixation through the posterior approach are standard methods for treating middle-inferior humerus fractures. Given the limited operative field and difficulty in locating the radial nerve, the minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) technique via the posterior approach to treat middle-inferior humerus fractures has rarely been reported. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effect of the preoperative study of the radial nerve position by B-ultrasound and its intraoperative protection combined with MIPPO in managing middle-inferior humerus fractures.

Methods

The data were studied retrospectively involving 64 participants who had surgery for middle-inferior humerus fractures from the start of 2017 to the end of 2020. Participants were divided into two groups, those treated with the MIPPO technique, including newly developed dual procedures and preoperative position and protection of radial nerve by B-ultrasound (group A), and those treated with open reduction and internal plating fixation (group B).

Results

All the cases were followed up for 12–34 months (an average of 25.6 ± 8.76 months), and there was no significant difference in the mean operative duration, surgical incision infection, range of motion (ROM) and MEPS (Mayo elbow performance score) for groups A and B. However, the occurrence of complications (radial nerve palsy, bone nonunion and flexible internal fixation or ruptures) in group B was significantly higher than the group A. A statistically significant difference was observed in the intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay and fracture nonunion time between the two groups. All the cases gained bone union within the MIPPO group.

Conclusion

MIPPO via the posterior dual approach associated with preoperative position and protection of radial nerve by B-ultrasound does not increase radial nerve injury, however, it exhibits obvious advantages in the bone union, which is worthy of clinical application.

Low profile dual plating for mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of observational studies

INTRODUCTION

Low profile dual plate fixation using two mini fragment plates (< 2.7 mm thickness) is a relatively new technique and alternative to single plating for treating midshaft clavicle fractures. To date, no meta-analysis has been performed comparing these two techniques. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials was performed comparing single plating to low profile dual plating for midshaft clavicle fractures.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing both treatments. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. The primary outcome is overall complication rate and re-intervention rate. Secondary outcomes include healing, operation duration and functional scores.

RESULTS

Low profile dual plating has favourable outcomes regarding overall complication rate (8.1% vs. 22.5%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7, I² = 16%, p = 0.007) and re-intervention rate (6.1% vs. 16.1%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9, I² = 25%, p = 0.02). The largest contributing factor behind these differences was the high incidence of implant related complaints in the single plating group (4.7% vs. 11.6%, OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, I² = 0%, p = 0.02). The use of low profile dual plating does not have a detrimental effect on healing with union being attained in 99% compared to 97.4% in the single plating group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.3-10.7, I = 0%, p = 0.5). Data on operating time and functional results is limited.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that dual plating low profile plates for midshaft clavicle fractures is a safe procedure attaining the same union rates seen in patients treated with single plating. In addition, it seems to have a lower overall complication and re-intervention rate, mostly driven by the lower incidence of implant related complaints. Low profile dual plating, however, is a fairly new technique and should be further explored in respect to more differentiated endpoints to test whether these first findings are valid.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Functional and clinical outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture (HUMMER): results of a multicenter prospective cohort study

Purpose

The best treatment of humeral shaft fractures in adults is still under debate. This study aimed to compare functional and clinical outcome of operative versus nonoperative treatment in adult patients with a humeral shaft fracture. We hypothesized that operative treatment would result in earlier functional recovery.

Methods

From October 23, 2012 to October 03, 2018, adults with a humeral shaft fracture AO type 12A or 12B were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in 29 hospitals. Patients were treated operatively or nonoperatively. Outcome measures were the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (DASH; primary outcome), Constant–Murley score, pain (Visual Analog Score, VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 (SF-36) and EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ-5D)), activity resumption (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder and elbow joint, radiologic healing, and complications. Patients were followed for one year. Repeated measure analysis was done with correction for age, gender, and fracture type.

Results

Of the 390 included patients, 245 underwent osteosynthesis and 145 were primarily treated nonoperatively. Patients in the operative group were younger (median 53 versus 62 years; p < 0.001) and less frequently female (54.3% versus 64.8%; p = 0.044). Superior results in favor of the operative group were noted until six months follow-up for the DASH, Constant–Murley, abduction, anteflexion, and external rotation of the shoulder, and flexion and extension of the elbow. The EQ-US, and pronation and supination showed superior results for the operative group until six weeks follow-up. Malalignment occurred only in the nonoperative group (N = 14; 9.7%). In 19 patients with implant-related complications (N = 26; 10.6%) the implant was exchanged or removed. Nonunion occurred more often in the nonoperative group (26.3% versus 10.10% in the operative group; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Primary osteosynthesis of a humeral shaft fracture (AO type 12A and 12B) in adults is safe and superior to nonoperative treatment, and should therefore be the treatment of choice. It is associated with a more than twofold reduced risk of nonunion, earlier functional recovery and a better range of motion of the shoulder and elbow joint than nonoperative treatment. Even after including the implant-related complications, the overall rate of complications as well as secondary surgical interventions was highest in the nonoperative group.

Trial registration

NTR3617 (registration date 18-SEP-2012).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-022-01890-6.

RIA versus iliac crest bone graft harvesting: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator (RIA) of long bones is increasingly being used as an alternative to iliac crest harvesting for bone-grafts. This meta-analysis compares both harvesting techniques with regard to donor site morbidity, healing potency and implantation site morbidity.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models and presented as weighted odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies were included. RIA carries a lower risk for chronic pain (0% versus 14.2%, OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 - 0.35) and infection (1% versus 5.9%, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09- 0.9) at the donor site compared to iliac crest harvesting. Iliac crest bone-harvesting has an inherent additional risk of neuropraxia of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve and numbness of the scar which is not encountered in RIA harvesting. Risk for other reported complications such as hematoma and iatrogenic fractures appear equal in both groups. The clinical healing potential of both bone grafts, in terms of union rate (OR 1.53, 95%CI 0.62 - 3.75) at the implantation site and time-to-union (MD 0.44 months, 95%CI -1.72 - 0.83), seems equal.

CONCLUSION

The main difference between RIA and iliac crest bone graft harvesting is the considerable higher risk of chronic pain of the pelvic procedure. Although risk for infection was also higher for the iliac crest group, the absolute difference is relatively small. Evidence suggests an equal healing potential of the grafts themselves irrespective of harvesting method.

One-year follow-up after treatment of proximal and/or middle one-third humeral shaft fractures with a helical plate: healing rates, complications and functional outcome measures

Background

Conventional plate osteosynthesis is a valuable treatment option in displaced proximal and/or middle one-third humeral shaft fractures. Nonetheless, this procedure can be complicated by a radial nerve palsy. To date, many surgical techniques have been developed in an attempt to minimize this high-impact complication. A helical plate has the potential to avoid an iatrogenic radial nerve palsy due to its design. This article aims to evaluate safety and functional outcomes of patients treated with a helical plate compared to conventional plate osteosynthesis. In particular healing rates, complications and functional outcome measures.

Methods

We retrospectively included all patients with displaced proximal and/or middle one-third humeral shaft fractures who were treated with a helical plate from October 2016 until August 2018 at a single level-1 trauma center (AZ Groeninge, Kortrijk, Belgium). A self-molded long PHILOS plate (DePuy Synthes®) or a pre-contoured A.L.P.S proximal humeral plating system (Zimmer Biomet®) were used. Patient baseline characteristics and standard radiographs were obtained pre- and postoperatively. We retrospectively searched for complications. Patients were reassessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Constant Murley (CMS) and EQ-5D-5L scores with a minimal follow-up of 1 year.

Results

The humeral shaft fractures of all sixteen patients consolidated within 3 months and no iatrogenic radial nerve palsies were observed. One plate had to be removed after 1 year due to a late deep infection. With a minimum follow up of 1 year, the mean DASH score was 22 ± 19 and the mean normalized CMS was 80 ± 19.

Conclusion

Operative treatment of proximal and/or middle one-third humeral shaft fractures with a helical plate is a safe procedure with good to excellent shoulder function at one-year follow-up. Contrary to conventional plate osteosynthesis, a helical plate has the potential to completely avoid a radial nerve palsy, while maintaining similar healing rates and functional outcomes.

Trial registration

Retrospective cohort study. B396201939564. Registered on 10 MAY 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04774-9.

Factors associated with humeral shaft nonunion

BACKGROUND

The primary aim was to identify patient and injury factors independently associated with humeral diaphyseal fracture nonunion after nonoperative management. The secondary aim was to determine the effect of management (operative/nonoperative) on nonunion.

METHODS

From 2008-2017, a total of 734 humeral shaft fractures (732 consecutive skeletally mature patients) were retrospectively identified from a trauma database. Follow-up was available for 663 fractures (662 patients, 90%) that formed the study cohort. Patient and injury characteristics were recorded. There were 523 patients (79%) managed nonoperatively and 139 (21%) managed operatively. Outcome (union/nonunion) was determined from medical records and radiographs.

RESULTS

The median age at injury was 57 (range 16-96) years and 54% (n = 359/662) were female. Median follow-up was 5 (1.2-74) months. Nonunion occurred in 22.7% (n = 119/524) of nonoperatively managed injuries. Multivariate analysis demonstrated preinjury nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; odds ratio [OR] 20.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-199.48; P = .009) and glenohumeral arthritis (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03-5.77; P = .043) were independently associated with an increased risk of nonunion. Operative fixation was independently associated with a lower risk of nonunion (2.9%, n = 4/139) compared with nonoperative management (OR for nonoperative/operative management 9.91, 95% CI 3.25-30.23; P < .001). Based on these findings, 5 patients would need to undergo primary operative fixation in order to avoid 1 nonunion.

CONCLUSIONS

Preinjury NSAIDs and glenohumeral arthritis were independently associated with nonunion following nonoperative management of a humeral diaphyseal fracture. Operative fixation was the independent factor most strongly associated with a lower risk of nonunion. Targeting early operative fixation to at-risk patients may reduce the rate of nonunion and the morbidity associated with delayed definitive management.

Autogenous Onlay Graft with Compression Plate for Treatment of Persistent Humeral Shaft Aseptic Non-union with Failed Previous Surgery

BACKGROUND: The humeral shaft fractures have a good rate of union, despite this fact, still there is a significant rate of nonunion after nonoperative treatment and more often after operative treatment. AIM: The aim of the study is to evaluate the autogenous onlay graft with compression plate for treatment of persistent humeral shaft non-union with failed previous surgery both radiological and functional outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study on twenty patients having persistent aseptic non-union age between 20 and 60 years old, after failed surgical treatment of fractures humeral shaft in Al-Zahra teaching and Al-Kindy teaching hospitals, while infected nonunion, diabetes mellitus, secondary metastasis, smoking, alcoholism, and patients on long medication with corticosteroid were excluded from the study. All our patients were treated with corticocancellous onlay bone grafting harvesting from the ipsilateral upper tibia and compression plating (graft parallel to plate) and follow-up for at least 18 months post-operative to evaluate both radiology and functional using Mayo elbow performance index. RESULTS: All the patients ended with a solid union without hardware failure, and no one patient needs further surgery, even with significant resorption of the graft, there is a good chance of graft re-calcification and solid union with good to excellent functional outcome. CONCLUSION: Very successful solid union results achieve in those patients with established aseptic nonunion and pseudoarthrosis of the humerus.

Open plate fixation versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis compares open reduction and internal fixation with a plate (ORIF) versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures with regard to union, complications, general quality of life and shoulder/elbow function.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL was searched for observational studies and randomised clinical trials (RCT). Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Results were presented as weighted odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Subgroup analysis was performed stratified for study design (RCTs and observational studies).

RESULTS

Eighteen observational studies (4906 patients) and ten RCT's (525 patients) were included. The pooled effect estimates of observational studies were similar to those obtained from RCT's. More patients treated with nailing required re-intervention (RD 2%; OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-3.8) with shoulder impingement being the most predominant indication (17%). Temporary radial nerve palsy secondary to operation occurred less frequently in the nailing group (RD 2%; OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6). Notably, all but one of the radial nerve palsies resolved spontaneously in each groups. Nailing leads to a faster time to union (mean difference - 1.9 weeks, 95% CI - 2.9 to - 0.9), lower infection rate (RD 2%; OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7) and shorter operation duration (mean difference - 26 min, 95% CI - 37 to - 14). No differences were found regarding non-union, general quality of life, functional shoulder scores, and total upper extremity scores.

CONCLUSION

Nailing carries a lower risk of infection, postoperative radial nerve palsy, has a shorter operation duration and possibly a shorter time to union. Shoulder impingement requiring re-intervention, however, is an inherent disadvantage of nail fixation. Notably, absolute differences are small and almost all patients with radial nerve palsy recovered spontaneously. Satisfactory results can be achieved with both treatment modalities.

Cement augmentation for trochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

Introduction

To date, it is unclear what the clinical benefit of cement augmentation in fixation for trochanteric fractures is. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare cement augmentation to no augmentation in fixation of trochanteric femur fractures in the elderly patients (>65 years) following low energy trauma.

Methods

PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing both treatments. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by study design (RCTs and observational studies). The primary outcome is overall complication rate. Secondary outcomes include re-operation rate, mortality, operation duration, hospital stay, general quality of life, radiologic measures and functional hip scores.

Results

A total of four RCT’s (437 patients) and three observational studies (293 patients) were included. The effect estimates of RCTs were equal to those obtained from observational studies. Cement augmentation has a significantly lower overall complication rate (28.3% versus 47.2%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.3 (95%CI 0.1–0.7). The occurrence of device/fracture related complications was the largest contributing factor to this higher overall complication rate in the non-augmented group (19.9% versus 6.0%, OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1–0.6). Cement augmentation also carries a lower risk for re-interventions (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1–0.7) and shortens the hospital stay with 2 days (95%CI -2.2 to -0.5 days). The mean operation time was 7 minutes longer in the augmented group (95%CI 1.3–12.9). Radiological scores (lag screw/blade sliding mean difference -3.1mm, 95%CI -4.6 to -1.7, varus deviation mean difference -6.15°, 95%CI; -7.4 to -4.9) and functional scores (standardized mean difference 0.31, 95%CI 0.0–0.6) were in favor of cement augmentation. Mortality was equal in both groups (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.4–1.3) and cement related complications were rare.

Conclusion

Cement augmentation in fixation of trochanteric femoral fractures leads to fewer complications, re-operations and shorter hospital stay at the expense of a slightly longer operation duration. Cementation related complications occur rarely and mortality is equal between treatment groups. Based on these results, cement augmentation should be considered for trochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Nail plate combination in the upper extremity: surgical technique and clinical application

Nail plate constructs (NPC) have shown promising results in complex lower extremity peri-articular fractures as well as in peri-prosthetic fractures. The combination of both implants allows for improved mechanical stability and immediate weight bearing. The use of NPC has not been described in the upper extremity in the literature. We herein describe potential indications and surgical technique for NPC usage for complex upper extremity trauma and reconstruction.

[Antegrade and retrograde nailing of humeral shaft fractures]

OBJECTIVE

Restoring humeral shaft alignment using direct or indirect reduction techniques with subsequent intramedullary stabilisation with an antegrade or retrograde inserted humeral nail. Achieving osseous union and restoration of painfree upper arm function.

INDICATIONS

Antegrade: Humerus shaft fractures located in the proximal 2/3 of the humerus. Combined fractures of the ipsilateral proximal humerus and humerus shaft. Segmental fractures of the humerus shaft. Pathological fractures or osteolysis (palliative indication). Retrograde: Humerus shaft fractures located in the middle and distal part of the humerus diaphysis.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Acute infection in the area of the surgical approach; polytrauma with acute life-threatening haemodynamic instability.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

In the antegrade technique: anterolateral acromial approach. Determination of the correct nail entry point on the humeral head. Incision of the rotator cuff with longitudinal split of the fibres. Closed or semi-open fracture reduction. Insertion of an intramedullary nail with an appropriate length and diameter. Interfragmentary compression when required. Proximal and distal static interlocking with at least 2 bolts on each side. In the retrograde technique, the nail is inserted after opening of the medullary cavity directly proximal to the olecranon fossa.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Functional aftertreatment with passive and active-assisted exercises during the first 3 weeks. Subsequent active exercises avoiding forced rotation of the arm. Sports activities and severe stress are avoided for 3 months. Postoperative radiographs as well as after 2, 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Very good healing results with excellent clinical and radiological healing are achieved in more than 90% of cases after both antegrade and retrograde nailing. Intraoperative problems that have been reported in up to 40% of cases occurred mainly with former generation nails or were attributable to technical errors. Correspondingly, with the closed reduction technique postoperative infections are rare (< 3%). Undesirable distraction at the fracture site is successfully corrected by intraoperative interfragmentary compression. Success and complication rates after intramedullary nailing and plate fixation are not significantly different. Functional shoulder-related problems may occur after antegrade nailing, whereas elbow problems may occur after retrograde nailing.

ORIF versus MIPO for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the optimal operative technique for humeral shaft fractures. This meta-analysis aims to compare minimal-invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for humeral shaft fractures regarding non-union, re-intervention, radial nerve palsy, time to union, operation duration and functional outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing MIPO with ORIF for humeral shaft fractures. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models and presented as weighted odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by study design (RCTs and observational studies).

RESULTS

A total of two RCT's (98 patients) and seven observational studies (263 patients) were included. The effect estimates obtained from observational studies and RCT's were similar in direction and magnitude. MIPO carries a lower risk for non-union (RD: 5%; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9) and secondary radial nerve palsy (RD 5%; OR 0.3, 95%CI 0.1- 0.9). Nerve function eventually restored spontaneously in all patients in both groups. Results were inconclusive regarding re-intervention (RD 7%; OR: 0.7, 95%CI 0.2-1.9), infection (RD 4%; OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.1-1.5), time to union (MD -1 week, 95%CI -3 - 1) and operation duration (MD -13 minutes, 95%CI -38.9 - 11.9). Functional shoulder scores (SMD 0.01, 95%CI -0.3 - 0.3) and elbow scores (SMD 0.01, 95%CI -0.3 - 0.3) were similar for the different operative techniques.

CONCLUSION

MIPO has a lower risk for non-union than ORIF for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Radial nerve palsy secondary to operation is a temporary issue resolving in all patients in both treatment groups. Although both treatment options are viable, the general balance leans towards MIPO having more favorable outcomes.

Locking compression plate fixation in humeral shaft fractures: A comparative study to literature conservative treatment

INTRODUCTION

Humeral shaft fractures represent about 3% of all fractures. While there are several treatment options for this type of fractures, there is no evidence in literature showing which is the best one. This study aims at analysing the outcomes for patients with humeral shaft fractures treated with Locking Compression Plate (LCP) fixation in our hospital and comparing them with the outcome for patients conservatively treated (according to data from Pubmed),in order to determine the best treatment option.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We treated surgically 220 humeral shaft fractures in our department from February 2005 to March 2012. Seventy-three of them met all the inclusion criteria for this study. All fractures were then classified according to the AO classification. The follow-up considered the radiographic healing of the fracture. All patients were treated with plate fixation (LCP - DePuySynthes Co). At the end of the four-year follow-up, the function was evaluated by means of the DASH score. A systematic review of the literature of the last 20 years was performed on MEDLINE (PubMed).

RESULTS

We had 2 infections and 8 patients had postoperative nerve palsy which recovered in average time of 6.7 months. In addition, 4 fractures (5.48%) didn't heal within 6 months and they were considered as nonunions and healed after a second surgery. One of these 4 nonunions was infected. The mean DASH score was 18.24±19.18. No malunions were found. We identified 13 studies that were eligible for our systematic review. The mean non-union rate found was 17% in 2517 fractures with a follow-up that ranging from 67% to 100% of patients and a primary radial nerve palsy ranging from 0 to 115 patients. Malalignment rate ranged from 12.7 to 42%.

CONCLUSIONS

After taking into account both the conservative and the surgical treatment, for humeral shaft fractures we suggest the operative treatment, because the patient's function of the upper limb recovers quickly in the immediate postoperative period and the incidence of malunions may be avoided.

Plate vs. nail for extra-articular distal tibia fractures: How should we personalize surgical treatment? A meta-analysis of 1332 patients

BACKGROUND

Treatment for distal diaphyseal or metaphyseal tibia fractures is challenging and the optimal surgical strategy remains a matter of debate. The purpose of this study was to compare plate fixation with nailing in terms of operation time, non-union, time-to-union, mal-union, infection, subsequent re-interventions and functional outcomes (quality of life scores, knee- and ankle scores).

METHODS

A search was performed in PubMed/Embase/CINAHL/CENTRAL for all study designs comparing plate fixation with intramedullary nailing (IMN). Data were pooled using RevMan and presented as odds ratios (OR), risk difference (RD), weighted mean difference (WMD) or weighted standardized mean difference (WSMD) with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). All analyzes were stratified for study design.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies with 1332 patients were analyzed, including ten RCTs (n = 873) and five observational studies (n = 459). IMN leads to a shorter time-to-union (WMD: 0.4 months, 95%CI 0.1 - 0.7), shorter time-to-full-weightbearing (WMD: 0.6 months, 95%CI 0.4 - 0.8) and shorter operation duration (WMD: 15.5 min, 95%CI 9.3 - 21.7). Plating leads to a lower risk for mal-union (RD: -10%, OR: 0.4, 95%CI 0.3 - 0.6), but higher risk for infection (RD: 8%, OR: 2.4, 95%CI 1.5 - 3.8). No differences were detected with regard to non-union (RD: 1%, OR: 0.7, 95%CI 0.3 - 1.7), subsequent re-interventions (RD: 4%, OR: 1.3, 95%CI 0.8 - 1.9) and functional outcomes (WSMD: -0.4, 95%CI -0.9 - 0.1). The effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies were equal for all outcomes except for time to union and mal-union.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory results can be obtained with both plate fixation and nailing for distal extra-articular tibia fractures. However, nailing is associated with higher rates of mal-union and anterior knee pain while plate fixation results in an increased risk of infection. This study provides a guideline towards a personalized approach and facilitates shared decision-making in surgical treatment of distal extra-articular tibia fractures. The definitive treatment should be case-based and aligned to patient-specific needs in order to minimize the risk of complications.

MIPO versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies

PURPOSE

There is no consensus on the optimal operative technique for humeral shaft fractures. This meta-analysis aims to compare minimal-invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with nail fixation for humeral shaft fractures regarding healing, complications and functional results.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing MIPO with nailing for humeral shaft fractures. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models and presented as weighted odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Analyses were repeated stratified by study design (RCTs and observational studies).

RESULTS

A total of 2 RCTs (87 patients) and 5 observational studies (595 patients) were included. The effects estimated in observational studies and RCTs were similar in direction and magnitude for all outcomes except operation duration. MIPO has a lower risk for non-union (RD 7%; OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) and re-intervention (RD 13%; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.8). Functional shoulder (SMD 1.0, 95% CI 0.2-1.8) and elbow scores (SMD 0.4, 95% CI 0-0.8) were better among patients treated with MIPO. The risk for radial nerve palsy following surgery was equal (RD 2%; OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.2) and nerve function recovered spontaneously in all patients in both groups. No difference was detected with regard to infection, time to union and operation duration.

CONCLUSION

MIPO has a considerable lower risk for non-union and re-intervention, leads to better shoulder function and, to a lesser extent, better elbow function compared to nailing. Although nailing appears to be a viable option, the evidence suggests that MIPO should be the preferred treatment of choice. The learning curve of minimal-invasive plating should, however, be taken into account when interpreting these results.

Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing for Pediatric Humeral Shaft Fractures Under Ultrasonographic Guidance: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Fixation with an elastic stable intramedullary nail (ESIN) is a widely used technique for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ultrasonography (US) is used as an auxiliary tool and alternative to radiography during surgery to reduce radiation damage, but whether it is effective in pediatric patients is not known. In this study we evaluated the utility of US in the treatment of pediatric humeral shaft fractures by closed reduction and fixation with an ESIN.

METHODS

Children who were admitted to our hospital with humeral shaft fractures were retrospectively examined from January 2016 to March 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups, US (treated by US-guided closed reduction and ESIN fixation) and non-US (treated with the same technique but with intraoperative radiography instead of US). The postoperative functional recovery of the 2 groups was compared.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 28 boys and 17 girls (age range: 4-16 years) with humeral shaft fractures. US significantly reduced radiation exposure during the operation (P = 0.008), and intraoperative US facilitated the detection of nerve and vascular injury and aided surgical planning. There was no difference between the 2 groups in postoperative recovery based on the Constant-Murley shoulder score (CMS).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that US-guided closed reduction and ESIN fixation for humeral shaft fractures can limit radiation exposure and help doctors to determine the optimal surgical strategy to avoid radial nerve injury.