The modified anterolateral approach to the humerus

Comparison of Posterior and Anterolateral Surgical Approaches in Treating Adult Humeral Shaft Fractures

AIM

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of two different surgical approaches, the anterolateral and posterior approaches, for treating humeral shaft fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Between January 2015 and May 2021, 51 patients with humeral shaft fractures were treated with anterolateral and posterior approaches. Twenty-nine patients were operated with the posterior approach (group 1) and 22 with the anterolateral approach (group 2). Statistical analyses were performed between the two groups regarding age, gender distribution, fractured side, body mass index (BMI), type of trauma, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification, and follow-up time. Complications such as operative time, amount of bleeding, incision length and implant fracture, radial nerve palsy, wound infection, and nonunion were compared between the two groups. Functional results of the elbow joint were evaluated with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score.

RESULTS

 The mean follow-up period was 49.10±21.15 months (12-75 months) in group 1 and 50.00±23.71 months (range: 15-70 months) in group 2. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of age, gender distribution, fractured side, BMI, trauma type, AO/OTA classification, and follow-up time (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and incision length (p>0.05). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 77.24±20.03 (range: 70-100 points) in group 1 and 81.36±8.34 (range: 70-100 points) in group 2, and no significant difference was found (p>0.05). When evaluated in terms of complications, there was no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). While there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding elbow joint range of motion, the limitation was observed in more patients in group 1.

CONCLUSION

 Similar satisfactory treatment results were obtained in patients who underwent anterolateral and posterior approaches in treating humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, no difference was found between the two approaches regarding complication rates.

Risk of Radial Nerve Injury in Anterolateral Humeral Shaft Plating

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the risk of iatrogenic radial nerve injury between arm positionings of 45° and 60° abduction in anterolateral humeral plating using a 4.5-mm narrow dynamic compression plate.

METHODS

Fifty-six humeri of cadavers in the supine position with 45° of arm abduction were exposed through the anterolateral approach. A hypothetical fracture line was marked at the middle of the humerus, and a precontoured ten-hole 4.5-mm narrow dynamic compression plate was applied and fixed to the anterolateral surface. After the fixation, the radial nerve was exposed through a triceps-splitting approach. Screws in contact with or which had penetrated the radial nerve were deemed to be injuries. Then, the screws and plate were removed, the arm changed to the 60° arm abduction position, and the steps of applying the plate and inserting the screws were followed as in the 45° arm abduction step.

RESULTS

The screws which could potentially injure the radial nerve were those of the second to sixth screw holes in both the 45° and 60° of arm abduction positions. The incidences of iatrogenic radial nerve injury of the second to sixth screw holes in the 45° position were 5.36%, 39.29%, 80.36%, 60.71%, and 10.71%, respectively, and at the 60° position were 5.36%, 53.57%, 83.93%, 60.71%, and 7.14%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in risk of injury between the two positions in all screw holes (all P-values > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

In anterolateral humeral shaft fixation, arm abduction position did not affect the risk of iatrogenic radial nerve injury, with the main risk from certain screw holes. The surgeon should be careful in screw insertion, especially at the fourth and fifth screw holes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; cadaveric study.

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.

Comparison of the Posterior and Anterolateral Surgical Approaches in the Treatment of Humeral Mid-Shaft Fractures: A Retrospective Study

Background

The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess and compare the functional outcomes and complications following anterolateral versus posterior surgical approaches for the treatment of mid-shaft fractures of the humerus.

Material/Methods

This study included 107 patients treated for mid-shaft fractures between May 2015 and July 2018. Demographic and surgical data were collected for each patient. During follow-up visits, radiographs were acquired and evaluated. The clinical outcomes of the involved joints were assessed by the Constant scoring system, range of motion (ROM), and the Mayo Elbow Performance Scoring system at the 12-month follow-up.

Results

The posterior approach was performed in 57 patients with type A fractures (group I, n=28) and type B or C fractures (group III, n=29). The anterolateral approach was performed in 50 patients with type A fractures (group II, n=32) and type B or C fractures (group IV, n=18). There were no significant differences between group I and group II nor between group III and group IV with respect to patient demographic data, surgical data, Constant score, ROM, or Mayo Elbow Performance score. A significant difference in the total complication rate was observed between group I and II.

Conclusions

The anterolateral approach showed an advantage over the posterior approach for treating simple humeral mid-shaft fractures. However, this advantage was not observed in treating comminuted fractures.