Comparison of direct surgical cost for humeral shaft fracture fixation: open reduction internal fixation versus intramedullary nailing

Intramedullary Nail vs. Plate Fixation for Pathological Humeral Shaft Fracture: An Updated Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgery-Related Factors

(1) Background: Pathological humeral shaft fracture (PHSF) is a frequently observed clinical manifestation in the later stages of tumor metastasis. Surgical interventions are typically recommended to alleviate pain and restore functionality. Intramedullary nail fixation (INF) or plate fixation (PF) is currently recommended for the treatment of PHSF. However, there is still no standard for optimal surgical treatment. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of INF with PF for PHSF treatment. (2) Methods: We conducted searches in databases, such as Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed, for studies published prior to May 2023. In total, nine studies with 485 patients were reviewed. (3) Results: There were no significant differences noted in the incidence of fixation failure, local recurrence, wound complication or overall complication. However, the INF group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of postoperative radial nerve palsy than the PF group (OR, 5.246; 95% CI, 1.548-17.774; p = 0.008). A subgroup analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in fixation failure or local recurrence among subgroups categorized by the design of intramedullary nail. (4) Conclusions: Considering the short life expectancy of end-stage patients, the choice of surgical method depends on the patient's individual condition, fracture and lesion patterns, the surgeon's experience, and comprehensive discussion between the surgeon and patient.

Humerus shaft fractures, approaches and management

Humeral shaft fracture is a common injury which can be treated either conservatively with functional bracing or with surgical fixation. Current evidence shows an increase in the rate of nonunion after conservative treatment, suggesting that indications for conservative treatment may need to be re-examined. This article updates trends in treatment for humeral shaft fracture. Indications for surgery, both for plate osteosynthesis with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) as well as for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are described. Recognition of the advantages and disadvantages of each technique can better define the role of the plate or nail and can aid in the selection of an appropriate surgical approach. ORIF with compression plate continues to have a role in the treatment of simple or AO/OTA type A fractures. The primary goal of minimal invasive osteosynthesis, a surgical technique involving small incisions, closed reduction or mini-open reduction that minimizes soft tissue dissection and helps preserve the periosteal blood supply, is to achieve bone union and the best possible functional outcomes. MIPO of the humerus is now well accepted as being less invasive and providing relative stability to allow indirect (secondary) bone healing with callus formation. MIPO approaches can be performed circumferentially to the humerus, including the proximal, middle and distal shaft. The classic MIPO approach is anterior MIPO, followed by posterior, anterolateral and anteromedial MIPO. IMN is also an option for treating humerus fractures. In the past, IMN was not widely used due to the potential for complications such as shoulder impingement and elbow problems as well as the limited availability of implants and the steep learning curve of this surgical technique. Over the past decade, the launch of a new design of straight antegrade and retrograde IMN with established techniques has encouraged more surgeons to use IMN as an alternative option. Methods of dealing with concomitant and post-treatment radial nerve palsy have also been evolving, including the use of ultrasound for diagnosis of radial nerve conditions. Radial nerves with contusion, entrapment or laceration can be detected using ultrasound with reliability comparable to intraoperative findings. Trends in treatment of radial nerve palsy are described below. Future larger randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and operative management are necessary to further develop appropriate guidelines.

Comparison of direct surgical cost and outcomes for unstable elbow injuries: internal joint stabilizer versus external fixation

Background

Unstable elbow injuries sometimes require External fixation (ExF) or an Internal Joint Stabilizer (IJS) to maintain joint reduction. No studies have compared the clinical outcomes and surgical costs of these 2 treatment modalities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical outcome and surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) differ between ExF and IJS for unstable elbow injuries.

Methods

This retrospective study identified adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unstable elbow injures treated by either an IJS or ExF between 2010 and 2019 at a single tertiary academic center. Patients postoperatively completed 3 patient-reported outcome measures (the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, the Mayo Elbow Performance score, and EQ-5D-DL). Postoperative range of motion was measured in all patients, and complications tallied. SETDCs were determined and compared between the 2 groups.

Results

A total of 23 patients were identified, with 12 in each group. Clinical and radiographic follow-up for the IJS group averaged 24 months and 6 months, respectively, and for the ExF group, 78 months and 5 months, respectively. The 2 groups had similar final range of motion, the Mayo Elbow Performance score, and 5Q-5D-5L scores; ExF patients had better the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. IJS patients had fewer complications and were less likely to require additional surgery. The SETDCs were similar between the 2 groups, but the relative contributors to cost differed significantly between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients treated with an ExF or IJS had similar clinical outcomes, but complications and second surgeries were more likely in ExF patients. The overall SETDC was also similar for ExF and IJS, but relative contributions of the cost subcategories differed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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