Length of stay and 30-day readmissions after isolated humeral shaft fracture open reduction and internal fixation compared to intramedullary nailing

Short-term complication rates of open reduction and plate fixation and intramedullary nailing in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a propensity score matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

This is a retrospective cohort study designed to compare short-term postoperative complication rates between closed humeral shaft fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus intramedullary nailing (IMN), as well as secondary independent risk factors for adverse outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried using CPT codes to identify patients that underwent an open reduction and plate fixation or intramedullary nailing procedure for a closed humeral shaft fracture from 2010 to 2021. Cohorts were matched using propensity scores to account for demographic differences and rates of complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

From the database, a total of 4,222 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria, with 3,326 and 896 undergoing ORIF and IMN respectively. After propensity score matching, 866 of the nearest-neighbor matches were included in each cohort for a total of 1,732 patients in the final analysis. The rate of any adverse event (AAE) was significantly higher in the ORIF cohort (16.3%) than the IMN cohort (12.1%, p = 0.01). The ORIF group had higher rates of postoperative transfusion (p = 0.002), return to OR (p = 0.005), and surgical site infection (SSI, p = 0.03). After multivariate analysis, ASA class 4, increasing age, increasing operative time, and history of bleeding disorder were found to increase the risk of AAE in both ORIF and IMN patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While prior studies have claimed higher complication rates in IMN patients, this study found a significantly higher short-term risk of AAE in ORIF patients when compared in matched cohorts. However, individual 30-day complication rates do not differ significantly between procedures, and both have been shown to be safe and effective tools in the management of humeral shaft fractures.

Outcome and complication comparison for intramedullary nail versus open reduction internal fixation in humeral diaphyseal fractures for 2800 matched patient pairs utilizing the Nationwide Readmissions Database

INTRODUCTION

Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and intramedullary nail fixation (IMN) are the predominant repair methods for operative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures; however, the optimal method is not fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to analyze whether IMN or ORIF humeral diaphyseal surgeries result in a significantly higher prevalence of adverse outcomes and whether these outcomes were age dependent. We hypothesize there is no difference in reoperation rates and complications between IMN and ORIF for humeral diaphyseal fractures.

METHODS

Data collected from 2015 to 2017 from the Nationwide Readmissions Database were evaluated to compare the prevalence of six adverse outcomes: radial nerve palsy, infections, nonunion, malunion, delayed healing, and revisions. Patients treated for a primary humeral diaphyseal fracture with either IMN or ORIF were matched and compared (n = 2,804 pairs). Patients with metastatic cancer were excluded.

RESULTS

Following an ORIF procedure, there was a greater odds of undergoing revision surgery (p = 0.03) or developing at least one of the complications of interest (p = 0.03). In the age-stratified analysis, no significant differences were identified in the prevalence of adverse outcomes between the IMN and ORIF cohorts in the 0-19, 20-39, and 40-59 age groups. Patients who were 60 + had 1.89 times the odds of experiencing at least one complication and 2.04 times the odds of undergoing a revision after an ORIF procedure versus an IMN procedure (p = 0.03 for both).

DISCUSSION

IMN and ORIF for humeral diaphyseal fractures are comparable in regard to complications revision rates in patients under the age of 60. Meanwhile, patients 60 + years show a statistically significant increase in the odds of undergoing revision surgery or experiencing complications following an ORIF. Since IMN appears to be more beneficial to older patients, being 60 + years old should be considered when determining fracture repair techniques for patients presenting with primary humeral diaphyseal fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Fixation of Proximal Third Humeral Shaft Fractures in Older Patients

Background

Humeral shaft fractures occur frequently in older patients. The more proximal end of the shaft is prone to non-union when compared with more distal fractures. We provide an overview of several key features of this significant patient group.

Method

Our institutional fracture database was searched for all cases of proximal third humeral shaft fractures in patients over 60 years of age. Retrospective evaluation of patient demographics, management, length of stay and incidence of non-union was performed.

Results

75 patients (61 female) were analysed. 33 patients were 'frail' (Clinical Frailty Scores of >4). Non-union occurred in 19 of 45 non-surgically treated fractures and in 1 of 37 cases treated surgically. Mean length of stay was 5.9 days (non-operative) and 6.6 days (operative). Proximal extension into the humeral head is common.

Conclusion

Non-surgical management of proximal third humeral shaft fractures is associated with an increased risk of non-union. We detail an operative technique and case example supporting early fixation of displaced proximal third humeral shaft fractures in older patients that can be utilized for both primary and delayed fixation. In view of the significant association of non-union a well-constructed prospective cohort study with outcome assessment would be of value to further characterize this emerging injury population.Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series.

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.