Anterolateral versus anteromedial plate osteosynthesis of midshaft humeral fractures; is there a difference in the rates of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy?

PURPOSE: The anterolateral (AL) and anteromedial (AM) surfaces of the humerus are typically used for plate placement during plate osteosynthesis of midshaft humeral fractures via the anterolateral approach. The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant difference exists in the rates of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (IRNP) following either AL or AM humeral fracture plating. The research question is stated as follows: is anteromedial plating of humeral fractures associated with lower rates of IRNP when compared with anterolateral plating? METHODS: This multicenter prospective randomized study was undertaken following ethical review and approval with eligible patients who had midshaft humeral fractures or nonunions randomized into 2 groups, viz AL plate osteosynthesis group and AM plate osteosynthesis group. Following diagnostic and preoperative evaluation, patients had open plate osteosynthesis through the anterolateral approach with plate placement according to their study groups. Post-operatively, they were assessed for IRNP while obtained data was analyzed with SPSS version 23 and inter-group differences with P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-five eligible patients participated in the study with 43 patients in Group A (AL plate osteosynthesis group) and 42 patients in Group B (AM plate osteosynthesis group). The observed inter-group differences with regard to gender distribution, mean age and clinical diagnosis; acute fracture (AF) versus nonunion were not statistically significant. Furthermore, four (9.3%) patients amongst the 43 patients in Group A (AL plate osteosynthesis group) developed IRNP while two (4.8%) patients amongst the 42 patients in Group B (AM plate osteosynthesis group) had IRNP. The inter-group difference with regard to rates of IRNP was not statistically significant (P = 0.694). CONCLUSION: This study found that (in contrast to previous studies) there was no significant difference in the rates of IRNP following either open anterolateral or anteromedial plate osteosynthesis of midshaft humeral fractures through the anterolateral approach. Orthopaedic surgeons should therefore remain cautious when obtaining consent for surgery as well as when performing internal fixation of midshaft humeral fractures to limit medicolegal disputes that may arise from IRNP.

Monolateral external fixation versus internal fixation of Gustilo IIIB open tibial fractures: a multicenter comparative study.

PURPOSE: Gustilo IIIB open tibial fractures are associated with significant risks of complications particularly nonunion and fracture-related infections (FRI) due to the severity of the injuries. The commonly adopted viewpoint is that a Gustilo IIIB open tibial fracture is a relative contraindication for internal fixation. However, this study aims to assess the veracity of this viewpoint. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the definitive fixation technique on fracture nonunion and FRI rates in Gustilo IIIB open tibial fractures. In this study, we compared the rates of nonunion and FRI rates in grade IIIB open tibial fractures managed definitively with either mono-lateral external fixation or internal fixation. METHODS: The study was a multicenter retrospective comparative study undertaken in seven Nigerian tertiary hospitals. Following ethical approval, medical records of patients diagnosed with Gustilo IIIB open tibial fractures (between 2019 and 2021) were retrieved, patients who had a minimum of nine months of follow-up period and were found eligible had their relevant data entered into an online data collection form. Data obtained was analysed with SPSS version 23, and chi-square test was used to determine the statistical significance of differences observed between the two groups with regard to nonunion and FRI rates. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of a total of 47 eligible patients, 25 patients were managed definitively with mono-lateral external fixation whilst 22 patients were managed with internal fixation. Five of the 25 patients (20%) managed with external fixation had nonunion whilst two cases of nonunion were recorded amongst the 22 patients (9.1%) treated with internal fixation. The difference between the two techniques with regard to nonunion rates was not statistically significant (P = 0.295). 12 out of 25 patients (48%) in the external fixation group had FRIs whilst 6 out of 22 patients (27.3%) in the internal fixation group had FRIs. The rates of FRIs of the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that mono-lateral external fixation and internal fixation do not differ significantly with respect to rates of nonunion and fracture-related infections in Gustilo IIIB open tibial fractures.