Operative versus nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Does double distal locking reduce non-union rates in intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fracture?

INTRODUCTION

Intramedullary nailing is one of the surgical treatments for humeral shaft fracture. Non-union is a common complication, with rates of 10-20%. The objective of this study was to compare non-union in humeral shaft fractures treated by intramedullary nailing with double distal locking, single distal locking or no locking.

HYPOTHESIS

Nailing with double distal locking decreases non-union rates compared to single or no locking.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective comparative study included 87 patients with closed humeral shaft fracture without neurologic deficit treated by anterograde intramedullary nailing: group 1 (double locking): 15 fractures; group 2 (single locking): 63 fractures; group 3 (no locking): 9 fractures. Non-union was defined as absence of radiographic callus at 6 months without clinical pain. The primary endpoint was non-union rate per group. The secondary endpoints were Constant score at 6 months, and postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in non-union rate: 20.0% in group 1, 20.3% in group 2, and 0% in group 3 (p=0.32). Constant score at 6 months was significantly different between the 3 groups (p=0.01). Group 2 used more NSAIDs than the other groups (39.1% vs. 20.0% in group 1 and 33.3% in group 3; p=0.37).

DISCUSSION

Non-union rates were similar regardless of distal locking for closed humeral shaft fractures without neurologic deficit treated by intramedullary nailing. Nevertheless, patients in the double locking group had higher Constant scores at 6 months, probably related to greater stability of fixation, allowing more efficient rehabilitation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; retrospective comparative study.

Different treatment for humeral shaft fractures: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The main treatment methods for humeral shaft fractures include minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), intramedullary nailing (IMN), open reduction and internal fixation (ORF), and non-operative treatment (NonOP). However, the optimal treatment plan remains unclear. This article utilizes a network meta-analysis to compare the therapeutic effects of MIPO, IMN, ORF, and NonOP for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, including the PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science Databases, from inception to June 1, 2024. The "Risk of Bias Assessment" tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. RevMan 5.4 software and R software with gemtc package was used for the graphical representation and data analysis of the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were finally included. The results indicated that the efficacy of disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score was significantly higher in the MIPO group than in the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) group (weighted mean difference = 4.7, 95% confidence intervals, 1.8-7.75). IMN was associated with a decrease of the constant-Murley scores score than NonOP (weighted mean difference = -4.4, 95% confidence intervals, -8.7 to -0.068). IMN, MIPO, and ORIF was associated with a decrease of the fracture healing time than NonOP. The difference for nonunion rate and iatrogenic radial nerve injuries between any 2 groups was not statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The evidence from current meta-analysis indicated that ORIF provides the best recovery effects for upper limb and shoulder joint function after the treatment of humeral shaft fractures, with the drawback of a relatively higher incidence of complications. To ensure the reliability of this study's results, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to verify these findings.

A retrospective analysis of functional and radiographic outcomes of humeral shaft fractures treated operatively versus nonoperatively

Background

To determine differences in functional outcomes, return to work, and complications, in operatively vs. nonoperatively treated diaphyseal humeral shaft fractures.

Methods

150 patients who presented to our center with a diaphyseal humeral shaft fracture (Orthopedic Trauma Association type 12) treated by open reduction internal fixation or closed reduction with bracing were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included patient demographics, injury information, surgical details, and employment data. Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported functional outcomes were recorded at routine standard-of-care follow-ups. Complications were recorded. Outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical methods and compared.

Results

150 patients with a mean 24.4 months of follow-up (12 to 60 months) were included for analysis. 83 (55.3%) patients were treated with nonoperative care in a functional brace. The rest were treated surgically. The mean time to healing did not differ between the cohorts (P > .05). Patients treated operatively recovered faster with regards to functional elbow range of motion by 6 weeks (P = .039), were more likely to be back at work by 8 weeks after injury (P = .001), and demonstrated earlier mean time to return-to-daily activities (P = .005). Incidence of nonunion was higher in the nonoperative cohort (10.84% vs. 0%, P = .031). Three (4.5%) patients in the operative group developed iatrogenic, postoperative nerve palsy. Two patients in the operative group (4%) had a superficial surgical site infection.

Conclusion

More patients treated surgically had functional range of motion by 6 weeks. Functional gains should be weighed by the patient and surgeon against risk of surgery, nonunion, nerve injury, and infection when considering various treatment options to better accommodate patients' needs.

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.

Trends in reported outcomes and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in humeral shaft fracture literature: a systematic review

PURPOSE

With a lack of standardization among outcome measures in fracture literature, cross-study comparisons remain limited. This systematic review aimed to identify trends in outcome measures reported by studies of the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of studies reporting clinical outcomes of humeral shaft fractures indexed in PubMed. Extracted data included demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment modalities, outcomes, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and journal characteristics. Cochran-Armitage tests and linear regressions were used to identify data trends. Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparisons between studies.

RESULTS

This review included 197 studies with outcomes of 15,445 humeral shaft fractures. 126 studies reported PROMs and 37 different PROMs were used. The Constant Score was most commonly reported (34% of studies), followed by ASES Score (21%), MEPS (21%), and DASH Score (20%). There was a significant increase in PROM usage over time (p = 0.016) and in articles using three or more PROMs (p = 0.005). The number of PROMs were significantly greater in prospective cohort studies and RCTs (p = 0.012) compared to retrospective cohort studies and case series (p = 0.044 for both). Post-treatment shoulder motion was reported in 43% of studies and 34% reported elbow motion. 86% of studies reported complications as an outcome parameter. Time to union and nonunion rate were published in 69% and 88% of studies, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study identified increasing PROM usage over time and disparities in the reporting of outcomes in humeral shaft fracture literature requiring further validation and standardization of available outcome measures.

Factors Associated With Episode of Care Adverse Events After Humerus Nonunion Repair

BACKGROUND

Humeral nonunions have devastating negative effects on patients' upper extremity function and health-related quality of life. The objective of this study was to identify factors independently associated with 30-day complication, hospital readmission, and reoperation after surgical treatment of humeral nonunions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database by querying the Current Procedural Terminology codes for patients who underwent humeral nonunion repair from 2011 to 2020. The study outcomes were 30-day complication, hospital readmission, and reoperation.

RESULTS

Of the 1306 patients in our cohort, 135 patients (10%) developed a complication, 66 patients (5%) were readmitted to the hospital, and 44 patients (3%) underwent reoperation during the 30-day postoperative period. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age, longer operative time, partially dependent functional status, congestive heart failure, bleeding disorder, and contaminated wound classification were associated with 30-day complication after humeral nonunion repair. Older age and disseminated cancer were associated with 30-day reoperation after humeral nonunion repair. Disseminated cancer was associated with 30-day readmission after humeral nonunion repair.

CONCLUSION

Using a large database over a recent 10-year period, we identified demographic and comorbid factors independently associated with episode of care adverse events after humeral nonunion repair. Patients 50 years or older had approximately three times the incidence of complications, readmissions, and reoperations in the first month after humeral nonunion repair compared with patients younger than 50 years. Our findings are relevant for preoperative risk stratification and counseling. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e181-e187.].

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.

No Differences in Clinical, Functional, or Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Trial of Nonoperative Management Before Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Humeral Shaft Fractures

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that primary osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures may lead to more favorable clinical, functional, and patient-reported outcomes than fixation following a trial of nonoperative management.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort review.

SETTING

Academic level I trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Adult patients who presented with humeral shaft fractures and ultimately underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) from May 2011 to May 2021. Patients who underwent ORIF within 2 weeks of injury were grouped into the primary osteosynthesis cohort, and patients who underwent ORIF >4 weeks from the date of injury were grouped into the trial of nonoperative cohort.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

Postoperative complications, elbow arc of motion, time to radiographic union, and patient-reported outcomes were investigated and compared between the primary osteosynthesis and trial of nonoperative management cohorts.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients fit the study criteria, 84 underwent primary osteosynthesis and 43 trialed initial nonoperative treatment. No differences were found in patient demographics between the primary osteosynthesis and trial of nonoperative management cohorts, including age (53 ± 19 vs. 57 ± 18; P = 0.25), sex (39% vs. 44% male, 61% vs. 56% female; P = 0.70), and Body Mass Index (BMI) (30 ± 6 vs. 32 ± 9; P = 0.38). The average time to operative intervention in the primary osteosynthesis group was 4 days (0-14 days) and 105 days (28-332 days) in the trial of nonoperative treatment group ( P < 0.01). No differences were found with regard to intraoperative blood loss, total operative time, time to radiographic union (determined using the Radiographic Union Scores for Humeral scoring system), or overall complication rates, including primary and secondary radial nerve injuries ( P = 0.23 and 0.86, respectively). Patients reported similar patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pain interference ( P = 0.73), depression (D) ( P = 0.99), and physical function ( P = 0.66) scores at their 6-month postsurgical follow-up visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who attempted a trial of nonoperative management for humeral shaft fractures before ORIF had similar clinical, functional, and patient-reported outcomes as those who underwent primary osteosynthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

3D printing assisted MIPO for treatment of complex middle-proximal humeral shaft fractures

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to explore the clinical efficacy of 3-dimensional (3D) printing assisted minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) technique by comparing the clinical outcomes with traditional open reduction and internal plating fixation (ORIF) for treating complex middle-proximal humerus fractures (AO 12C fracture type).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 42 participants who received a complicated middle-proximal humerus fracture from the beginning of 2018 to the end of 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were assigned to two groups: MIPO with detailed preoperative planning assisted by 3D printing technique (MIPO group), and traditional ORIF (ORIF group).

RESULTS

This study included 21 patients in the ORIF group and 21 patients in the MIPO group. All patients were followed-up for at least one year (mean: 16.12 ± 4.13 months), and no difference was observed in the range of shoulder joint motion (ROM), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) scores and Constant scores between the two groups. However, the occurrence of complications (surgical incision site infection, implant loosening, bone nonunion and radial nerve palsy) in ORIF group was remarkably higher compared to the MIPO group. All the cases achieved bone union within the MIPO group. Significant differences were found in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss and fracture healing time between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative 3D printing assisted MIPO technique exhibits obvious advantages in high operational efficiency and low occurrence of complications, which is worthy of clinical application for treating complex middle-proximal humeral shaft fractures.

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.

Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision-making with regard to the treatment of humeral shaft fractures remains under debate. The cost-effectiveness of these treatment options has yet to be established. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of operative treatment with that of nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

We developed a decision tree for treatment options. Surgical costs included the ambulatory surgical fee, physician fee, anesthesia fee, and, in the sensitivity analysis, lost wages during recovery. We used the Current Procedural Terminology codes from the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery to determine physician fees via the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database. The anesthesia fee was obtained from the national conversion factor and mean operative time for included procedures. We obtained data on mean wages from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and data on weeks missed from a similar study. We reported functional data via the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores obtained from existing literature. We used rollback analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to determine the cost-effectiveness of each treatment option, presented in dollars per meaningful change in DASH score, utilizing a $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold.

RESULTS

The cost per meaningful change in DASH score for operative treatment was $18,857.97 at the 6-month follow-up and $25,756.36 at the 1-year follow-up, by Monte Carlo simulation. Wage loss-inclusive models revealed values that fall even farther below the WTP threshold, making operative management the more cost-effective treatment option compared with nonoperative treatment in both settings. With an upward variation of the nonoperative union rate to 84.17% in the wage-exclusive model and 89.43% in the wage-inclusive model, nonoperative treatment instead became more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative management was cost-effective at both 6 months and 1 year, compared with nonoperative treatment, in both models. Operative treatment was found to be even more cost-effective with loss of wages considered, suggesting that an earlier return to baseline function and, thus, return to work are important considerations in making operative treatment the more cost-effective option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

[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.

Treatment of humeral shaft fractures with different treatment methods: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Humeral shaft fractures (HSFs) can be treated non-operatively (Non-OP), with open reduction and plate osteosynthesis (ORPO), minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), or with intramedullary nails (IMN). However, the best treatment for HSFs still remains controversial.We performed a network meta-analysis to explore which should be the best method for HSFs.

METHODS

The computerized search had been conducted on electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Medline from the establishment of the database to the end of December 2022. The quality evaluation of the included literature had been completed by Review Manager (version 5.4.1). Stata 17.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA)was used for network meta-analysis.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatments to treating HSFs.

RESULTS

The pairwise comparison results demonstrated that there was no statistical difference between IMN, MIPO, Non-OP, and ORPO in terms of radial nerve injury and infection, and Non-OP presented significantly more nonunion than ORPO, IMN, and MIPO. However, no statistically significant difference between ORPO, IMN, and MIPO was discovered. The results of the network meta-analysis displayed that surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities of IMN, MIPO, Non-OP, and ORPO in radial nerve injury were 46.5%, 66.9%, 77.3%, and 9.3%, respectively, in contrast, that in infection were 68.6%, 53.3%, 62.4%, and 15.4%, respectively, and that in nonunion were 51.7%, 93.1%, 0.7%, and 54.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We came to the conclusion that MIPO is currently the most effective way to treat HSFs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: Prospero, 2. Unique Identifying number or registration ID: CRD42023411293.

Initial Displacement of Humeral Shaft Fractures Is Associated With Failure of Nonoperative Management

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the initial radiographic displacement of humeral shaft fractures is associated with failure of nonoperative management.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Urban level 1 trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

106 patients with humeral shaft fractures (OTA/AO 12) initially managed nonoperatively.

INTERVENTION

Functional bracing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Failure of nonoperative management, defined as conversion to surgery, malunion, and delayed union/nonunion.

RESULTS

Nonoperative management failed in 33 (31%) of 106 included patients with 27 patients (25%) requiring surgery. On multivariate analysis, female sex [odds ratio (OR): 3.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09 to 11.21], American Society of Anesthesiologist classification >1 (OR: 7.16, CI: 1.95 to 26.29), initial fracture medial/lateral (ML) translation (OR: 1.09, CI: 1.01 to 1.17, per unit change), and initial fracture anterior-posterior (AP) angulation (OR: 1.09, CI: 1.02 to 1.15, per unit change) were independently associated with failure of nonoperative management. Initial fracture displacement values that maximized the sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) for failure included an AP angulation >11 degrees (SN 75%, SP 64%) and ML translation >12 mm (SN 55%, SP 75%). The failure rate in patients with none, 1, or both of these fracture parameters was 3.1% (1/32), 35.6% (20/56), and 66.6% (12/18), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-third of patients experienced failure of initial nonoperative management. Failure was found to be associated with greater initial fracture AP angulation and ML translation. Fracture displacement cut-off values were established that may be used by surgeons to counsel patients with these injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Clinical Characteristics, Mechanism, and Outcome of Humeral Shaft Fractures Sustained during Arm Wrestling in Young Men: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Humeral fractures are common in arm wrestling and other sports and military activities requiring similar movements; however, the precise mechanism is poorly understood. Here, we present an overview of the characteristics, possible mechanisms, and treatment of humeral shaft fractures sustained during arm wrestling.

METHODS

We reviewed 8 years (January 2013 to January 2021) of medical records and retrospectively analyzed data from 27 patients with humeral shaft fractures sustained during arm wrestling. The clinical data included sex, age, affected arm, alcohol consumption, muscle warm-up, history of competitive participation, opponents' characteristics, wrist position, and post-fracture radial nerve injuries. The fracture configurations were radiographically assessed and analyzed. Surgical management included single or dual plating. Scores on the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at the last follow-up visit.

RESULTS

All fractures sustained during arm wrestling were spiral fractures of the distal third of the humerus. Of these, 11 were 12-A1 type and 16 were 12-B2 type with a wedge fragment. The two subtypes differed in the total fracture line length (12-A1: 0.18 ± 0.04; 12-B2: 0.23 ± 0.04; P < 0.001). The radial nerve injury rate was 0/11 (0%) in patients with 12-A1 type fractures and 7/16 (43.8%) in patients with 12-B2 type fractures (P = 0.011). Most patients were young men (mean age, ~25 years) with a history of competitively participating in arm wrestling for >2 years. Cold seasonal temperatures and a lack of warm-ups increased the risk of injury. All patients showed improved DASH scores at the last follow-up (12-A1:77.82 ± 5.14 to 10.25 [5.38]; 12-B2:78.91 ± 7.46 to 8.95 [3.17]; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed among the different surgical treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who participated in arm wrestling were at risk of humeral shaft fractures (type 12-A1 or 12-B2). The 12-B2 type occurs with a wedge fragment and is frequently accompanied by radial nerve injuries. The characteristics of arm-wrestling fractures and the mechanism(s) underlying these fractures can help orthopedic surgeons understand the causes of these fractures and similar fractures sustained in traditional sports. This understanding will help surgeons choose more effective surgical treatments that will result in more desirable functional outcomes and a faster return to work.

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.

Individualized herbal prescriptions for delayed union: A case series

Background Bone fractures are important clinical events for both patients and professionals. Active treatment options are limited for delayed unions and for nonunions; surgery is common but not entirely risk-free. This report describes three cases of delayed union successfully treated with herbal decoction. Participants Three patients had trapezoid and 3rd metacarpal bone fractures, 2nd, and 5th metatarsal bone fractures, respectively. All three patients were diagnosed with delayed union by an independent orthopedic surgeon based on computed tomography (CT) scan/radiographic imaging and fracture duration without a healing process. Patients took herbal decoction, Jeopgol-tang, with individually added herbs based on symptom manifestations, twice daily for 56, 85 and 91 days with no additional interventions except for a splint that they had been wearing since fracture diagnosis. Outcomes Improvement of delayed union was evaluated using radiographic imaging or CT during treatment with Jeopgol-tang. Results After taking herbal medicine, callus and bony bridging were confirmed on follow-up imagings and the patients described their experience with pain reduction at an interview after recovery. Conclusions This case series suggests that the herbal decoction Jeopgol-tang warrants further investigation to establish its role as a complementary and integrative medicine treatment option for delayed unions.

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.

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.

Treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a new minimally-invasive plate osteosynthesis versus open reduction and internal fixation: a case control study

Background

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new minimally-invasive surgical approach–anteromedial minimally-invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO)–in the treatment of middle and distal humeral shaft fractures.

Methods

Fourteen patients with humeral shaft fracture treated with anteromedial MIPO from November 2016 to March 2020 (MIPO Group) were selected as the study subjects. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were used to treat 14 patients with humeral shaft fractures as the control group (ORIF group). The two groups were fixed with a locking compression plate (LCP) or LCP + multi-directional locking screw system (MDLS). The incision length, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, operation time, length of hospital stay, fracture healing time, QuickDASH score and Constant score were observed and compared between the two groups.

Results

Fourteen patients were enrolled in each group. The incision length (7.79 ± 2.39 cm), intraoperative blood loss (96.07 ± 14.96 mL), operative time (110.57 ± 21.90 min), hospital stay (6.29 ± 1.49 days) and fracture healing time (14.94 ± 0.99 weeks) in the MIPO group were all lower than those in the ORIF group, and the difference was statistically significant for each parameter (P < 0.05). The intraoperative fluoroscopy time (20.07 ± 3.22) in the MIPO group was significantly higher than that in the ORIF group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in age (P = 0.078), QuickDASH score (P = 0.074) or Constant score (P = 0.293) between the two groups and no postoperative complications occurred in any of the patients.

Conclusion

The anteromedial approach MIPO technique has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, low risk of nerve injury and high rate of fracture healing. It is one of the most effective methods for the treatment of middle and middle–distal humeral shaft fractures.

Dynamic locking screws in proximal humeral plate osteosynthesis demonstrate superior fixation properties: a biomechanical study

Purpose

Angular stable implants reduced the complication rate in the treatment of humeral head fractures. But the failure rate is still high. To further reduce the risk of cut-out, cement augmentation of screws was introduced. A reason for failure of plate osteosynthesis might be the extremely high stiffness of the screw-plate interface leading to a loss of reduction and cut-out of screws. A more homogeneous distribution of the forces on all screws may avoid secondary dislocation. We hypothesize that dynamic osteosynthesis minimizes screw loosening and results in a higher load to failure than standard locking screws.

Methods

Twelve paired human humerus specimens were analysed. A standardized three-part fracture model with a metaphyseal defect was simulated. Within each pair of humeri, one was fixed with a Philos plate and standard locking screws (LS), whereas the other humerus was fixed with a Philos plate and dynamic locking screws (DLS). A cyclic varus-bending test or a rotation test with increasing loading force was performed until failure of the screw-bone-fixation.

Results

In the varus bending test, pairs failed by screw loosening in the humeral head. The LS-group reached 2901 (601–5201) load cycles until failure, while the DLS-group failed after 3731 (2001–5601) cycles. This corresponds to a median loading of 195 N for the LS-group and 235 N for the DLS-group (p = 0.028). In the rotation test the LS-group reached a median of 1101 (501–1501) load cycles until failure of fixation occurred, while the DLS-group failed after 1401 (401–2201) cycles (p = 0.225).

Conclusions

Plate fixation using dynamic locking screws for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures demonstrated more load cycles until failure compared to standard locking plate osteosynthesis.