Seidel interlocking nailing for healing problems in humeral shaft fractures

Management of a humeral shaft non-union after a Gustilo III C fracture

A 25-year-old man was admitted to our Department with an open humeral shaft fracture (Gustilo III C); two large wounds were noticed with ulnar artery and median nerve completely dissected. Initial primary treatment included irrigation, debridement and fracture stabilization with a monolateral external fixator followed by vascular and nerve repair and wound closure. At 6 months follow up the patient was able to use his arm without any painful stimuli and a CT scan showed the presence of postero-medial callus formation. Consequently, the external fixator was removed and the patient was discharged to physiotherapy. After 7 months, the patient presented with severe pain and functional impairment with no history of trauma. X rays showed recent re-fracture on a background of oligotrophic nonunion. Revision surgery included debridement of the non-union bone edges, reaming of the medullary canal and insertion of a humeral nail. Six months later osseous healing was noted with complete restoration of shoulder and elbow movement and partial recovery of the median nerve.

Exchange nailing of ununited fractures

Exchange nailing is most appropriate for a nonunion without substantial bone loss. There is no clear consensus regarding the use of exchange nailing in the presence of active, purulent infection. The exchange nail should be at least 1 mm larger in diameter than the nail being removed, and it has been recommended that it be up to 4 mm larger when the nail being removed was greatly undersized. Canal reaming should progress until osseous tissue is observed in the reaming flutes. Exchange nailing is an excellent choice for aseptic nonunions of noncomminuted diaphyseal femoral fractures, with union rates reported to range from 72% to 100%. On the basis of the available literature, exchange nailing cannot be recommended for distal femoral nonunions at this time. Exchange nailing is an excellent choice for aseptic nonunions of noncomminuted diaphyseal tibial fractures, with union rates reported to range from 76% to 96%. On the basis of the available literature, exchange nailing is generally not indicated for humeral nonunions.

Exchange nailing of ununited fractures

Exchange nailing is most appropriate for a nonunion without substantial bone loss. There is no clear consensus regarding the use of exchange nailing in the presence of active, purulent infection. The exchange nail should be at least 1 mm larger in diameter than the nail being removed, and it has been recommended that it be up to 4 mm larger when the nail being removed was greatly undersized. Canal reaming should progress until osseous tissue is observed in the reaming flutes. Exchange nailing is an excellent choice for aseptic nonunions of noncomminuted diaphyseal femoral fractures, with union rates reported to range from 72% to 100%. On the basis of the available literature, exchange nailing cannot be recommended for distal femoral nonunions at this time. Exchange nailing is an excellent choice for aseptic nonunions of noncomminuted diaphyseal tibial fractures, with union rates reported to range from 76% to 96%. On the basis of the available literature, exchange nailing is generally not indicated for humeral nonunions.

Evaluation and improvement of the efficiency of the Seidel humeral nail by numerical-experimental analysis of the bone-implant contact

Seidel intramedullary humeral nail is locked distally by a spreading device and proximally by transverse cross locking screws. The main problems found in its use are: the loosening of the distal anchorage, even after X-ray verification of the correct expansion of the device; the formation of distal fractures, occurring even 1 month after the operation; the system's low stability. The problems noted can be ascribed to the behaviour of the spreading device for distal fixing. The present study, therefore, was directed at analysing the contact between the spreading mechanism and the medullary canal in relation to the geometric parameters of the mechanism itself. The main objective was to define the correct regulation of the expansion in the operating theatre, and to delimit the more appropriate conditions of use, allowing the surgeon to evaluate the suitability of this particular device for the type of fracture under treatment. Numerical and experimental techniques were used to perform an analysis of the implant behaviour. This investigation, referred to immediate post-operative condition, allowed to evaluate the stability to traction of the system, to define the typology and properties of the bone-implant contact zone and to quantify the stresses produced, all as a function of the parameter on which the surgeon intervenes in the operating theatre: the number of turns used to tighten the spreading screw. The results obtained confirm and explain the disadvantages associated with the distal expansion system: the bone-implant contact turns out to be inefficient, as revealed by the distribution of the pressure on the inner wall of the medullary canal. On the basis of the results, it is possible to define the optimal conditions of use of the nail, and to formulate a simple solution for the improvement of its performance.

Failure of reamed nailing in humeral non-union: an analysis of 26 patients

The use of an intramedullary nail in the treatment of humeral non-unions remains controversial. This study evaluated the treatment of humeral delayed and non-unions with reamed nailing and compression. In a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data from 26 cases all treated with the Telescopic Locking Nail (TLN), the healing rate after the first intervention for non-union was 58%. After one or more re-interventions combined with an external cancellous bone graft at some time during follow-up, 90% of the 21 patients with complete follow-up eventually healed after a mean of 22 months. A total of 49 procedures with a mean of 1.9 per patient were needed. After a mean follow-up of 65 (range 24-88) months, we conducted a study to assess the functional results in the shoulder and elbow. Twelve patients were suitable for inclusion. We used the Neer and Morrey score for shoulder and elbow function, respectively. For the Neer score the median was 91 points and for the Morrey score 94 points. The outcome suggests that simple reamed nailing of humeral non-union is insufficient. Reamed interlocked nailing is feasible, provided that the primary intervention for non-union is combined with an external cancellous bone graft.

Delayed and non-union of the humeral diaphysis--compression plate or internal plate fixator?

In a retrospective study, two groups of patients with delayed or non-union of the humeral diaphysis were compared. In group A, a 4.5-mm low-contact dynamic compression plate (LCDCP) was used for internal fixation and in group B, an internal plate fixator with locked screws was used. In all patients autologous bone grafting was performed. Group A consisted of 14 patients (mean age 38.9 years) and group B consisted of 19 patients (mean age 54.3 years). The mean duration of the delayed or non-union was 9.3 months (range 3-26 months) in group A and 24.8 months (range 3-216 months) in group B. In group A an average of 1.1 (range 0-2) previous operations had been performed, and in group B an average of 1.6 (range 0-4). One primary nerve palsy was diagnosed in group A and six in group B. Although the patients of group B were older, had longer-lasting non-unions, more previous operations and more severe initial injuries, only in group A was there a hardware failure due to osteoporosis which required re-osteosynthesis. All other patients showed bony consolidation without further operations. The LCDCP and the internal plate fixator both showed high consolidation rates, but we feel that the internal plate fixator may be the more reliable implant, especially in patients with poor bone stock.

Huckstep intramedullary nailing for non-union of humeral shaft fractures

BACKGROUND

Various techniques of internal fixation for non-union of humeral shaft fractures have been attempted, leading to union rates of between 50 and 90% with persisting non-union causing pain and disability. Some of these techniques have led to shoulder and elbow dysfunction.

METHODS

Eight patients treated with Huckstep nail fixation for humeral shaft non-union were reviewed and the rate of union was determined. Elbow and shoulder function were assessed as well as the presence of pain or disability.

RESULTS

Union was achieved in seven of the eight patients (87.5%). Four patients had occasional mild pain after union. All patients achieved good arm function. Average shoulder abduction was 157 degrees and flexion 151 degrees excluding one patient with antecedent advanced osteoarthrosis of the gleno-humeral joint. No patient experienced any permanent neurological deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

Huckstep nail fixation achieved union rates comparable to or higher than the other techniques of internal fixation for non-union of humeral shaft fractures. Unlike the various methods of closed nailing, Huckstep nail fixation is not associated with shoulder and elbow dysfunction. It should be considered as a therapeutic option in humeral shaft fracture and non-union, especially where the fracture site needs to be opened.