Clinical outcomes of dual 3.5-mm locking compression plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures: Comparison with single 4.5-mm locking compression plate fixation

Adjunct fixation in upper extremity long bone fracture plating

PURPOSE

A variety of adjunct fixation methods to supplement primary plate and screw constructs are available. There are no large clinical series of these techniques in the upper extremity. The purpose of this study was to review patients with upper extremity fractures that underwent primary plating with adjunct fixation.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of plate fixation of humeral, radial and ulnar fractures over a 12-year period. Measurable outcomes for this study included rates of non-union, complications, and implant removal.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine humeral shaft fractures had supplemental fixation 97% of the time, with a 100% union rate. Supplemental fixation was used in 79% of forearm cases. There was a 98% initial union rate in 48 acutely plated forearm fractures.

CONCLUSION

Although a variety of techniques were employed, the mini-fragment (2.7 mm or smaller) was the most common strategy for adjunctive fixation of long bone fractures in the upper extremity.

Small-Fragment Plate Fixation of Humeral Shaft Fractures

Fixation of humeral shaft fractures is frequently performed with large-fragment (4.5 mm) plates to accommodate immediate weight bearing. Use of small-fragment (3.5 mm) plates as an alternative carries theoretical benefits. We examined nonunion rates and postoperative radial nerve palsy (RNP) rates in a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation of humeral shaft fractures with 3.5-mm or 4.5-mm plates. Two hundred thirty-six patients with 241 humeral shaft fractures were included. Small 3.5-mm plates were used in 83% of the patients, and large 4.5-mm plates were used in 17% of the patients. Fifty-three percent were made weight bearing as tolerated following surgical fixation. There was a 7% incidence of nonunion and a 10% incidence of RNP in the 3.5-mm plate group. There was a 7% incidence of nonunion and a 15% incidence of RNP in the 4.5-mm plate group. No statistically significant relationship was shown between nonunion or RNP and plate size (P=.74 and P=.39). No relationship was shown between nonunion and postoperative weight-bearing status (P=.45). Subgroup analysis according to plate size additionally showed no association of nonunion with postoperative weight bearing in both the 4.5-mm (P=.55) and the 3.5-mm (P=.25) cohorts. Small-fragment and large-fragment plating of humeral shaft fractures resulted in comparable union and RNP rates, regardless of postoperative weight-bearing status. Our findings suggest that 3.5-mm plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures is a safe alternative to 4.5-mm plate fixation. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(4):198-204.].

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.

Use of the HemaClear™ elastic tourniquet reduces blood loss in operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures

BACKGROUND

To determine if the use of a narrower elastic tourniquet compared to a standard pneumatic tourniquet reduces operative blood loss in the operative fixation of humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed at a level I trauma center and included 134 patients, aged 18 to 90 years, with a humeral shaft fracture treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) from January 2007 through June 2018. The primary variable of interest was the application of a HemaClear™ elastic tourniquet versus a standard pneumatic tourniquet during the fixation of a humeral shaft fracture. The primary outcome was estimated blood loss (EBL) during the humerus ORIF surgery as recorded in the operative record. The secondary outcomes were total tourniquet time and operative time. The primary purpose of the study was to compare the above outcomes between the two tourniquet types.

RESULTS

Estimated blood loss was 42% lower (95% CI: 11% to 73%, p < 0.01) in the elastic tourniquet group when compared to the standard pneumatic tourniquet group. The use of the elastic tourniquet was also associated with a 67% increase (95% CI: 35% to 100%, p < 0.01) in tourniquet time compared to the standard pneumatic tourniquet. No difference in the total operative time between the two groups (difference, -3%; 95% CI: -21 to 14, p = 0.72) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Elastic tourniquet use was associated with 42% less blood loss in the fixation of humeral shaft fractures compared to use of a traditional pneumatic tourniquet, although this may be of unclear clinical importance given the relatively low estimated blood loss in this cohort. The potential benefit of reduced blood loss associated with the narrower elastic tourniquet is likely caused by the increased tourniquet time, without a change in overall operative time.

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.

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.

Comparison of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation with Plate and Titanium Elastic Intramedullary Nail in Treating Pediatric Humeral Fracture

Objective

To investigate the therapeutic efficacy of titanium elastic intramedullary nail (TEN) and open reduction and internal fixation with plate (ORIF) in the treatment of humeral fracture in children.

Methods

A retrospective study was carried out in a total of 69 patients who were admitted to the hospital from January 2013 to December 2018. These patients, including 41 males and 28 females, were aged from 6 to 12 years old with a median of 8 years. These patients were diagnosed with humeral fracture and underwent the surgery of ORIF (n = 22) or TEN (n = 47). The intraoperative bleeding, operation time, length of stay (LOS), and fracture healing time were compared between the two groups. The therapeutic effect was assessed by the shoulder range of motion, the elbow range of motion, the UCLA shoulder function score, and the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) 6 months after the surgery.

Results

The intraoperative bleeding (97.20 ± 27.83 mL vs 185.60 ± 37.50 mL, P < 0.05), the operation time (53.70 ± 11.87 min vs 73.50 ± 13.33 min, P < 0.05), and the fracture healing time (9.30 ± 4.23 weeks vs 13.45 ± 3.67 weeks, P < 0.05) in the TEN group was significantly decreased than those in the ORIF group. There was no significant difference in the LOS between the two groups. The length of follow‐up is 3 and 6 months. The shoulder range of motion (110.88° ± 15.82° vs 98.37° ± 16.22° at 3 months and 162.88° ± 17.29° vs 117.65° ± 19.38° at 6 months, both P < 0.05), the elbow range of motion (105.23° ± 2.81° vs 87.12° ± 4.73° at 3 months and 137.47° ± 4.82° vs 109.67° ± 5.83° at 6 months, both P < 0.05), and the UCLA shoulder function score (28.58 ± 4.74 vs 21.64 ± 7.23 at 3 months and 33.05 ± 3.27 vs 25.78 ± 3.87 at 6 months, both P < 0.05), and the MEPS (80.76 ± 3.53 vs 65.33 ± 9.43 at 3 months and 97.48 ± 1.23 vs 88.22 ± 3.65 at 6 months, both P < 0.05) in the TEN group were greater than those in the ORIF group. In the TEN group, complications occurred in three of 47 cases (6.38%), including one case (2.13%) of bone nonunion and two cases (4.25%) of irritation response around the nail. In the ORIF group, complications occurred in four of 22 cases (18.18%), including one case (4.55%) of delayed healing, one case (4.55%) of deep infection, and two cases (9.08%) of radial nerve injury. The complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion

TEN can be a good technique for the treatment of humeral fracture in children, with the advantages of less intraoperative bleeding, shorter operative time, quicker healing, and better recovery of shoulder range of motion and elbow range of motion.

Radial nerve palsy associated with closed humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of 1758 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Humeral shaft fractures are often associated with radial nerve palsy (RNP) (8-16%). The primary aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence of primary and secondary RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to compare the recovery rate of primary RNP and the incidence of secondary RNP between operative and non-operative treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in 'Trip Database', 'Embase' and 'PubMed' to identify original studies reporting on RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The Coleman Methodology Score was used to grade the quality of the studies. The incidence and recovery of RNP, fracture characteristics and treatment characteristics were extracted. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare operative versus non-operative treatment.

RESULTS

Forty studies reporting on 1758 patients with closed humeral shaft fractures were included. The incidence of primary RNP was 10%. There was no difference in the recovery rate of primary RNP when comparing operative treatment with radial nerve exploration (98%) versus non-operative treatment (91%) (p = 0.29). The incidence of secondary RNP after operative and non-operative treatment was 4% and 0.4%, respectively (p < 0.01).

INTERPRETATION

One-in-ten patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture has an associated primary RNP, of which > 90% recovers without the need of (re-)intervention. No beneficial effect of early exploration on the recovery of primary RNP could be demonstrated when comparing patients managed non-operatively with those explored early. Patients managed operatively for closed humeral shaft fractures have a higher risk of developing secondary RNP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review.

Locking compression plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures: which one is better? A single-centre prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

To compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of interlocking nail (ILN) and locking plate fixation (LCP) for humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

A total of 63 patients with displaced humeral shaft fractures between October 2014 and January 2017 were evaluated prospectively. They were divided randomly into two as LCP fixation (group 1) and interlocking nail (ILN) (group 2). Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores, and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires, and pain was assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

After fracture callus was radiologically observed, DASH, ASES, and UCLA scores as well as SF-36 questionnaires and VAS results were noted to have no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.109, p = 0.082, p = 0.146, p = 0.322, and p = 0.175, respectively). At the last follow-up (post-operative 24 months), the UCLA score was significantly better in group 1 (p = 0.034), whereas VAS result was significantly worse in group 2 (p = 0.017). DASH, ASES scores, and SF-36 questionnaires had no difference (p = 0.193, p = 0.088, p = 0.289). Other parameters revealed no significant differences. Fracture consolidation was observed at a mean of four months in both groups (3 to 7 months in group 1 and 3 to 8 months in group 2) (p = 0.189). Four patients in group 1 and five patients in group 2 underwent surgery for nonunion (p = 0.725). Post-operative radial nerve palsy was seen in one patient in group 2. Two patients in group 1 with superficial infection were treated with antibiotics, and they recovered.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding our results, the LCP group had significantly better shoulder function than the ILN group, whereas the ILN group had significantly less pain, with similar complication rates. Therefore, both procedures are favourable surgical options for patients with humeral shaft fractures.