Surgical approach for fracture of distal humerus: Posterior vs lateral

Management of a road major trauma in a spoke hospital: a report of opioid-free anesthesia in a minimally invasive orthopedic surgery

Major trauma is bound to be managed in highly specialized centers. Due to logistics needs or due to an initial clinical stabilization, these patients happen to be managed in hospitals that are not fully equipped for trauma. We handled a patient, major trauma to dynamics following a high-speed collision between two cars in which she was behind the wheel. The patient was also complex due to cardiovascular and respiratory comorbidities. After ‘ABCDE’ and radiological evaluation, the patient was managed in our hospital with ICU recovery and multiple orthopedic interventions to which she was subjected with neuraxial and peripheral regional anesthesia. The patient was managed successfully and with excellent pain control. The risks associated with her comorbidities were limited to a minimum and she was discharged for rehabilitation 5 days after the operations.

Risk factors for hardware-related complications after extra-articular distal humerus fracture fixation using an anatomical locking plate

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify the incidence and risk factors of hardware-related complications in patients treated with anatomical locking plate fixation for extra-articular distal humerus fractures.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, patients with extra-articular distal humerus fractures who underwent open reduction and internal fixation with an extra-articular distal humerus locking plate (EADHP) were retrospectively reviewed and categorized according to the presence/absence of hardware-related complications. Hardware-related complications were defined as the occurrence of skin prominence on the plate and discomfort in activities of daily living. Patient demographics, the lateral condylar angle, lateral body length, shaft-condylar angle of the humerus, and plate length were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 29 patients, 10 (34%) did not develop hardware-related complications (group A), whereas 19 (66%) did (group B). Patient demographics did not differ between the groups. However, the number of patients who underwent hardware removal was significantly greater in group B (16/19) than in group A (4/10; p = 0.032). Radiologic assessment revealed no significant difference in the lateral condylar or shaft-condylar angle. However, the lateral body length was greater in group A than in group B (44.5 ± 4.8 vs. 39.5 ± 3.7, p = 0.007). The plate length significantly differed between the groups. Twelve of 19 (63%) patients in group B received short-hole plates (six holes), while nine of ten (90%) patients in group A received long-hole plates (eight holes). In the multivariable analysis, the lateral body length of the distal humerus (p = 0.047, odds ratio = 0.734, 95% confidence interval: 0.542-0.996) and plate length (p = 0.036, odds ratio = 0.076, 95% confidence interval: 0.542-0.996) were associated with hardware-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients developed hardware-related complications, particularly with short plates, mainly because of the narrow lateral body length of the distal humerus. Surgeons should be careful to secure EADHP in the appropriate position, especially when short plates are used in patients with narrow lateral body length.

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.

Anterolateral approach with two incisions versus posterior median approach in the treatment of middle- and distal-third humeral shaft fractures

Background

The surgical approaches remain controversial for the treatment of middle and distal-third humeral shaft (MDTHS) fractures. This study compared clinical effects of the anterolateral approach with two incisions (AATI) and the posterior median approach (PMA) in the treatment of MDTHS fractures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out. One hundred sixty-six patients with MDTHS fractures were selected from January 2015 to January 2017 in Xi’an Hong Hui Hospital. According to surgical approaches, patients were divided into AATI (86 cases) and PMA group (80 cases). All patients were treated with open reduction and plate fixation. Operation indexes were compared, including incision length, operation time, and bleeding. Bryan-Morrey score was used to evaluate elbow joint function. Complication incidence was compared, such as incision infection, iatrogenic radial nerve injury, and nonunion.

Results

The AATI group showed smaller incision length, less bleeding, lower iatrogenic radial nerve injury rate, and better elbow function than that of PMA group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The middle and distal-third humeral shaft fractures can be successfully cured by both approaches. Compared with the posterior median approach, it has better clinical effects of the anterolateral approach with two incisions, which is worthy of clinical application and promotion.