Henry Versus Thompson Approach for Fixation of Proximal Third Radial Shaft Fractures: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the volar Henry and dorsal Thompson approaches with respect to outcomes and complications for proximal third radial shaft fractures. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with proximal third radial shaft fractures ± associated ulna fractures (OTA/AO 2R1 ± 2U1) treated operatively at 11 trauma centers were included. INTERVENTION: Patient demographics and injury, fracture, and surgical data were recorded. Final range of motion and complications of infection, neurologic injury, compartment syndrome, and malunion/nonunion were compared for volar versus dorsal approaches. MAIN OUTCOME: The main outcome was difference in complications between patients treated with volar versus dorsal approach. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 292 days, 202 patients (range, 18-84 years) with proximal third radial shaft fractures were followed through union or nonunion. One hundred fifty-five patients were fixed via volar and 47 via dorsal approach. Patients treated via dorsal approach had fractures that were on average 16 mm more proximal than those approached volarly, which did not translate to more screw fixation proximal to the fracture. Complications occurred in 11% of volar and 21% of dorsal approaches with no statistical difference. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference in complication rates between volar and dorsal approaches. Specifically, fixation to the level of the tuberosity is safely accomplished via the volar approach. This series demonstrates the safety of the volar Henry approach for proximal third radial shaft fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Previous Implant Fractures: A New Descriptive Classification System.

OBJECTIVES: To propose a previous implant fractures (PIFs) classification system with good interobserver reliability. DESIGN: Retrospective classification. SETTING: Four academic medical centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review of PIFs treated at 4 academic medical centers over 10 years was performed. Data collected included initial implant and PIF radiographs. There were 103 PIFs in 96 patients during the study period. Seventy-three (70.9%) were about plate/screw (PS) constructs and 30 (29.1%) were about intramedullary (IM) devices. INTERVENTION: Assignment of PIF classification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PIFs were classified based on initial implant (PS or IM) and fracture location with respect to the initial implant (proximal or distal to the implant, at the tip of the construct, or within the construct). Reliability of this scheme was assessed among 5 observers using Fleiss' kappa tests. RESULTS: Of PIFs about plate/screw constructs, 26.0% were proximal/distal to the implant (classification: PS1), 57.5% involved bone between the most proximal/distal screw and the same end of the plate (classification: PS2), and 16.4% involved only bone between the most proximal and distal screws (classification: PS3). Of PIFs about IM, 43.3% were distal to the device (classification: IM1), 46.7% involved bone between the most proximal/distal locking bolt and the same end of the device (classification: IM2), and 10.0% involved only bone between locking bolts (classification: IM3). Interobserver reliability for the classification system was excellent between observers, κ = 0.839, P < 0.0005. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed system offers a simple method to classify and describe fractures that occur about a previously implanted fracture device. Development of a classification system will allow for comparison of treatment modalities between injury types.