Risk factors of poor mid-term shoulder functional outcomes of osteosynthesis using antegrade intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Osteosynthesis using antegrade intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures yields satisfactory bone union rates; however, it may adversely affect postoperative shoulder function. To date, factors affecting mid- or long-term shoulder functional outcomes following intramedullary nail fixation have not been clarified. In this study, we aimed to identify the risk factors for poor mid-term functional outcomes over 5 years postoperatively following antegrade intramedullary nail osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 33 patients who underwent surgery using an antegrade intramedullary nail for acute traumatic humeral shaft fractures and were followed up for at least 5 years postoperatively. We divided the patients into clinical failure and no clinical failure groups using an age- and sex-adjusted Constant score of 55 at the final follow-up as the cutoff value. We compared preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors between the two groups. RESULTS: Five of the 33 patients had poor shoulder functional outcomes (adjusted Constant score < 55) at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years postoperatively. Proximal protrusion of the nail at the time of bone union (P = 0.004) and older age (P = 0.009) were significantly associated with clinical failure in the univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis showed that proximal protrusion of the nail (P = 0.031) was a risk factor for poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide new information on predictive factors affecting mid-term outcomes following osteosynthesis using antegrade nails. Our results demonstrated that proximal protrusion of the nail was significantly associated with poor mid-term functional shoulder outcomes. Therefore, particularly in older adults, it is essential to place the proximal end of the intramedullary nail below the level of the articular cartilage.

Radial Nerve Palsy in the Setting of Humeral Shaft Fracture.

The upper limb has a complex anatomy comprised of many nerve and vascular structures, making humeral shaft fractures extremely important. Injury to the humeral shaft commonly occurs due to trauma and affects younger male or older female patients. The radial nerve travels along the spiral groove of the humerus, placing it at an increased risk of damage in humeral shaft fractures. If injured, there are a variety of classifications of radial nerve injury, different indications for exploration, and treatment methods that orthopedic surgeons have available in treating these injuries. This review aims to discuss the etiology of humeral shaft fracture-associated radial nerve palsy, tools for diagnosis, and treatment.

Intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures: percutaneous nailing in the lateral position through the Neviaser approach is a reliable technique.

BACKGROUND: Displaced humeral shaft fractures are frequently treated by osteosynthesis in the active patient. We aimed to evaluate the results of intramedullary nailing (IMN) in the lateral position with the Neviaser approach and to compare them with those from IMN nailing in the standard position and conventional approach. METHODS: In the retrospectively evaluated, single-center study, we compared 20 cases of long IMN for fractures of the proximal or middle third of the humerus shaft (Multilock; Synthes Laboratory) in the lateral position with the percutaneous Neviaser approach with 52 cases of IMN in the standard position. The mean age of patients was 62 ± 21 years. Clinical outcomes were analyzed: Constant score, subjective shoulder evaluation score and range of motion. Radiographically, entry point at the proximal part of the humerus, the healing rate and the possible association between the critical shoulder angle (CSA) and the correct positioning of the nail were assessed. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 26 ± 2 months, the healing rate was 89% (64/72) in the overall series, (eight patients in non-union), with no difference between the two groups. The overall mean active anterior elevation (AAE) was 125 ± 22°, mean external rotation (ER1) was 35 ± 17°, and mean internal rotation (IR) was at L3. The mean Constant score was 58 ± 23 and subjective shoulder evaluation score 73 ± 12%. ranges of motion were better in the lateral than standard position group (AAE 133 ± 17 vs. 122 ± 23, P = .03; ER1 47 ± 13 vs. 30 ± 16, P < .001; IR T12 vs. L5, P = .02). The nail was less often protruding in the lateral than standard position group (1/20 [5%] vs. 20/52 [38.5%], P = .002). The nail was better positioned from the anteroposterior view (nail centered: 16/20 [75%] vs. 26/52 [50%], P = .047) and lateral view (nail centered: 18/20 [90%] vs. 34/52 [65.4%], P = .02) in the lateral than standard position group. We found no association between nail position, type of approach and CSA. CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term follow-up, osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures by using long IMN in the lateral position with the Neviaser approach is a reliable technique. The positioning of the nail, in particular its entry point, and the clinical results were better with the lateral position and Neviaser approach than with the standard position and conventional approach. Further studies with a larger number of patients, assessment of the learning curve, and analysis of the impact of this technique on comorbidities (unchanged cerebral perfusion) are needed to fully validate this technique.

Single versus double plate fixation of humeral shaft nonunion.

INTRODUCTION: Humeral shaft fractures are common fractures of the diaphysis of the humerus. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors affecting the clinical outcomes of humeral nonunions surgically treated with open reduction and single- versus double-plate fixation with grafting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients with nonunion treated with single- or double-plate screw fixation with bone grafting were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment method as Group 1 (single-plate, n = 14) and Group 2 (double-plate, n = 17). Data including demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, initial and final treatment, type of nonunion and localisation, graft use, shortening, follow-up, time to union, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH) scores, and patient-reported cosmetic outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Of the patients, eight were males, and 23 were females, with a mean age of 47.6 ± 15.8 (range, 20-86) years. Initial treatment was conservative treatment (Sarmiento brace) in seven patients, plate fixation in 22 patients, and intramedullary nailing in two patients. The mean follow-up was 31.0 ± 16.9 months in Group 1 and 25.4 ± 15.6 months in Group 2. There was one nonunion in Group 1 and three in Group 2. There were no significant differences in the union rate and time to union (p = 0.378 and p = 0.262, respectively). The mean Quick-DASH scores and cosmetic results were similar between the groups (p = 0.423 and p = 0.165, respectively). Radial nerve palsy developed in three patients in Group 2, and all these patients recovered completely during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the double-plate fixation technique has similar clinical, radiological, and functional results to single-plate fixation, it is a more invasive and expensive technique with a longer operation time. Therefore, it should not be used as the first-line treatment option for all humeral shaft nonunion. Nevertheless, the double-plate technique may be preferred to achieve in cases requiring high stability, such as hypertrophic nonunion, osteopenia and comminuted fractures.

Iatrogenic open humeral shaft fractures following functional bracing.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures tends to be successful with functional bracing. Treatment failure due to iatrogenic conversion to an open fracture has not been described in the literature. We present a case series of patients that experienced open humeral shaft fractures after initially being treated with functional bracing for closed humeral shaft fractures and describe what factors are associated with this complication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case series performed at three level 1 trauma centers across North America. All nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were reviewed from 2001 to 2023. Patients were included if they sustained a humeral shaft fracture, > 18 years old, were initially treated non-operatively with functional bracing which subsequently converted to an open fracture. Eight patients met inclusion criteria. All included patients were eventually treated with irrigation, debridement, and open reduction and internal fixation. Outcomes assessed included mortality rate, time until the fracture converted from closed to open, need for further surgery, and bony union. Descriptive statistics were used in analysis. RESULTS: The eight included patients on average were 65 ± 21.4 years old and had a body mass index (BMI) of 25.6 ± 5.2. Six patients were initially injured due to a fall. Time until the fractures became open on average was 5.2 ± 3.6 weeks. Three patients (37.5%) died within 1.8 ± 0.6 years after initial injury. The average Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was 4.5 ± 3.4. Three patients (37.5%) had dementia. Common characteristics among this cohort included a history of visual disturbances (50.0%), cerebrovascular accident (50.0%), smoking (50.0%), and alcohol abuse (50.0%). CONCLUSION: Conversion from a closed to open humeral shaft fracture after functional bracing is a potentially devastating complication. Physicians should be especially cognizant of patients with a low BMI, history of falling or visual disturbance, dementia, age ≥ 65, decreased sensorimotor protection, and significant smoking or alcohol history when choosing to use functional bracing as the final treatment modality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

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.

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.

Comparative study of mechanical performance of various fixation constructs in multifragmentary distal humeral shaft fracture: a finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been no scientific mechanical assessment demonstrating the optimal fixation technique in multifragmentary fractures of the distal humeral shaft. The purpose of the present study was to compare the biomechanical performance of 5 fixation constructs as used in minimally invasive plating osteosynthesis (MIPO) for distal humeral shaft fractures. METHODS: Three-dimensional (3D) humerus model with 20 mm distal humeral shaft fracture gap simulating multifragmentary fracture was created from computed tomography data and virtually fixed by 5 fixation techniques as MIPO, i.e., anterior narrow dynamic compression plate (DCP), anterior narrow locking compression plate (LCP), anterior reversed proximal humeral internal locking system (R-PHILOS), extra-articular distal humerus locking compression plate (LCP-EADH), and anteromedial LCP. All constructs were biomechanically tested under 6 loading conditions by means of finite element analysis, i.e., 250-N axial compression, 7.5-N m internal rotation, 7.5-N m external rotation, 10-N m posterior bending, 10-N m valgus rotation, and 10-N m varus rotation. In addition, A 3D model of each construct was fabricated as 3D printed models. Fixations were applied to the 3D printing model which were later mechanically tested to validate the FE results. RESULTS: EQV stress exhibited on anterior narrow LCP and anterior R-PHILOS were comparable which were lower than other constructs under axial compression and valgus-varus bending. Anterior R-PHILOS produced lower EQV stress than other constructs under internal-external rotation and posterior bending. On the whole, R-PHILOS demonstrated a comparable fracture displacement to those LCP with anterior or anteromedial approaches, that achieved the lowest displacement values. In addition, the experimental mechanical test values shared a correlation with the FE model results. CONCLUSION: Overall, the anterior R-PHILOS was considered as a potential candidate for multifragmentary distal humeral shaft fractures. It demonstrated efficacious biomechanical performance in terms of implant stress and distal fragment displacement.

Compare the clinical value of two minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical value between locating radial nerve (RN) guided by Color Doppler ultrasonography and posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve (PACN) in the posterior humeral approach. METHODS: The five fresh adult cadavers (ten upper arms) were selected to compare the two methods of locating the RN in the posterior humeral approach (guided by ultrasound and PACN) by measuring the operation time, the length of incision, and the area of subcutaneous free. And the comparison between the two groups was statistically analyzed by paired t-test. RESULTS: The results of this study demonstrated that the length of incision and the area of subcutaneous free in the ultrasound group were smaller than that in the PACN group (P < 0.05), while the operation time was just the opposite (P < 0.05). However, after excluding the time of ultrasound location, the operation time in the ultrasound group was shorter than that in the PANC group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The RN can be quickly and safely exposed by both methods. The ultrasound approach requires a long learning curve, but is more minimally invasive and can help determine whether the intraoperative nerve is compressed by the plate. And the PACN method requires a longer incision and a wider area of subcutaneous free, while specialized equipment and professional training for surgeons are not required. In a word, these two methods have advantages and disadvantages, so they should be selected based on the exact situation.

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.

Shoulder problems after percutaneous antegrade intramedullary nailing in humeral diaphyseal fractures using contemporary straight third-generation nail.

BACKGROUND: Antegrade intramedullary nailing in humeral shaft fracture has been abandoned by certain orthopedic surgeons because of rotator cuff injury caused by first- and second-generation intramedullary nails (IMNs). However, only a few studies have specifically addressed the results of antegrade nailing for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures with a straight third-generation IMN; thus, complications need to be re-evaluated. We hypothesized that fixation of displaced humeral shaft fractures with a straight third-generation antegrade IMN with the percutaneous technique avoid shoulder problems (stiffness and pain) incurred by first- and second-generation IMNs. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, nonrandomized study of 110 patients with a displaced humeral shaft fracture between 2012 and 2019 treated surgically with a long third-generation straight IMN. Mean follow-up was 35.6 months (range, 15-44 months). RESULTS: There were 73 women and 37 men with a mean age of 64.7 ± 19 years. All fractures were closed (37.3% 12A1, 13.6% 12B2, and 13.6% 12B3 AO/OTA classification). Mean Constant score was 82 ± 19, Mayo Elbow Performance Score 96 ± 11 and the mean EQ-5D visual analog scale score was 69.7 ± 21.5. Mean forward elevation 150° ± 40°, abduction 148° ± 45°, and external rotation 38° ± 15°. Symptoms associated with rotator cuff disease were present in 6.4%. Evidence of radiographic fracture healing was detected in all but 1 case. One postoperative nerve injury and 1 adhesive capsulitis were present. Overall, 6.3% underwent second surgeries (4.5% were minor surgeries like hardware removal). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous antegrade intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures with a straight third-generation nail considerably reduced complications related to shoulder problems and achieved good functional results.

Nonunion of conservatively treated humeral shaft fractures is not associated with anatomic location and fracture pattern.

INTRODUCTION: Humeral shaft fractures make up 1-3% of all fractures and are most often treated nonoperatively; rates of union have been suggested to be greater than 85%. It has been postulated that proximal third fractures are more susceptible to nonunion development; however, current evidence is conflicting and presented in small cohorts. It is our hypothesis that anatomic site of fracture and fracture pattern are not associated with development of nonunion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 147 consecutive patients treated nonoperatively for a humeral shaft fracture were assessed for development of nonunion during their treatment course. Their charts were reviewed for demographic and radiographic parameters such as age, sex, current tobacco use, diabetic comorbidity, fracture location, fracture pattern, AO/OTA classification, and need for intervention for nonunion. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients with 147 nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were eligible for this study and included: 39 distal, 65 middle, and 43 proximal third fractures. One hundred and twenty-six patients healed their fractures by a mean 16 ± 6.4 weeks. Of the 21 patients who developed a nonunion, two were of the distal third, 10 of the middle third, and nine were of the proximal third. In a binomial logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in age, sex, tobacco use, diabetic comorbidity, fracture pattern, anatomic location, and OTA fracture classification between patients in the union and nonunion cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Fracture pattern and anatomic location of nonoperatively treated humeral shaft fractures were not related to development of fracture nonunion.

The standardized exploration of the radial nerve during humeral shaft fixation reduces the incidence of iatrogenic palsy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to determine if a standardized protocol for radial nerve handling during humeral shaft repair reduces the incidence of iatrogenic nerve palsy post operatively. METHODS: Seventy-three patients were identified who underwent acute or reconstructive humeral shaft repair with radial nerve exploration as part of the primary procedure for either humeral shaft fracture or nonunion. All patients exhibited intact radial nerve function pre-operatively. A retrospective chart review and analysis identified patients who developed a secondary radial nerve palsy post-operatively. In each case, the radial nerve was identified and mobilized for protection, regardless of whether the implant necessitated the extensile exposure. RESULTS: Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA guidelines and included 23 Type 12A, 11 Type 12B, and 3 Type 12C. Eight patients had periprosthetic fractures and 28 fractures could not be classified. All patients in the cohort were fixed with locking plates. Surgery was indicated for 36 patients with humeral nonunions and 37 patients with acute humeral shaft fractures. Of the 73 patients, 2 (2.7%) developed radial nerve palsy following surgery, one from the posterior approach and one from the anterolateral approach. Both patients exhibited complete recovery of radial nerve function by 6-month follow-up. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in any demographic or surgical details between those with and without radial nerve injury. CONCLUSIONS: Nerve exploration identification and protection leads to a low incidence of transient radial nerve palsy compared to the rate reported in the current literature (2.7% compared to 6-24%). Thus, radial nerve exploration and mobilization should be considered when approaching the humeral shaft for acute fracture and nonunion repairs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Medial minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures: a case series and novel technique description.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPPO) is increasingly favored for treating humeral shaft fractures (HSFs). However, conventional MIPPO techniques pose challenges in fixing fractures near fossa olecranon and carry a risk of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy. A novel technique using a medial MIPPO for treating humeral shaft fractures (HSFs) is described. Results of clinical follow-up are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective case series study. Twenty-one patients (mean age 43.9 ± 17.66 [22‒81] years) with HSFs were treated with the novel MIPPO fixation method. Clinical outcomes including time for radiographic consolidation, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, and complications were assessed at the last follow-up. The mean follow-up was 26 ± 17.12 (range 12-67) months. RESULTS: All patients had a bony union at a mean of 15.76 ± 6.74 (range 8-40) weeks based on X-ray with an early and aggressive range of motion. The complication rate was 0. The mean DASH score was3.29 ± 4.09 (range 0-14.17) at the time of the last follow-up. The mean screw density was 0.49 ± 0.1 (range 0.2-0.65). CONCLUSION: This novel surgical technique for HSFs is a viable alternative to previously described methods with the advantage of being less prone to nerve injury and easy to fix distal extra-articular HSFs. The learning curve is short. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

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.

Advantages of simultaneous radial nerve and tendon reconstruction - a case report.

Transection of the radial nerve is frequently associated with humeral shaft fractures that are part of a very complex upper extremity injury. In the presented case, a 19-year-old man with a 10-cm radial nerve defect with a need for nerve grafting to recover complete sensory and motor deficit of the radial nerve. In our case, at the same time we provided the tendon transfer of musculus (m.) pronator teres to m. extensor carpi radialis brevis, m. flexor carpi ulnaris to m. extensor digitorum communis, m. palmaris longus to m. extensor pollicis longus, and long sural nerve graft because of an extensive zone of the injury. The assumption was that if these two procedures are performed in one surgery, it will accelerate overall recovery, restore the functionality of the upper limb more quickly, and thus enable a faster recovery.

Failure of humeral shaft fixation: construct characteristics.

PURPOSE: Fixation failure following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of humeral shaft fractures can be a challenging complication. We aimed to identify the modes of failure and characteristics of failed fixation constructs. METHODS: We queried our institutional database for patients > 18 years old with fixation failure after ORIF with single plate and screw constructs of humeral shaft fractures from 2006 to 2017. Demographics, fracture characteristics, fixation construct design and mode of failure were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-three failures were identified. Mean age was 55.9 years (SD 19.2 years) with 15 (65%) women. Twelve patients (52%) had midshaft fractures; the remainder had distal-third shaft (8 pts, 35%) or proximal-third shaft (3 pts, 13%) fractures. Midshaft fractures were most commonly fixed through an anterolateral approach with plates and all non-locking screws (83%), while distal-third shaft fractures were fixed with a combination of locking and non-locking screws from a posterior approach. Distal-third shaft fractures failed by plate breakage (63%) or screw pullout (38%) and all midshaft failures occurred by screw pullout proximal (92%) or distal (8%) to the fracture. Resultant varus deformity occurred in 20 (87%) fractures. CONCLUSION: Screw pullout in midshaft fractures suggests that fixation to bone was insufficient or biomechanically disadvantageous. Varus moments contribute significantly to the failure of humeral shaft fracture ORIF. Plate breakage in distal fractures suggests high concentrations of stress over a narrow working length of constructs with inadequate plate strength. Recognizing how these constructs fail can aid proper implant selection and application for humeral shaft fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Treatment level IV.

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis via posterior approach for type B and C fractures of distal humeral shaft: surgical tactics and a clinical series.

The optimal technique and implant for fixation of multifragmentary fractures of the distal humeral shaft remain inconclusive. We describe the use of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) via posterior approach and extra-articular distal humerus locking compression plate (LCP-EADH) fixation for 18 such fractures. All fractures were united with a mean union time of 17.6 weeks (range 12-20). Transient radial nerve palsy was demonstrated in 2 patients. Six patients had 5° varus angulation and 1 had 5° valgus angulation. Triceps power was Grade 5 in all patients. The mean arc of elbow motion was 127.5 degrees (range 115-140). Six patients had an excellent MEP score and 12 had a good MEP score. As the results, posterior MIPO and LCP-EADH fixation could be an alternative for multifragmentary fractures of the distal humeral shaft, particularly for fractures with a very short distal fragment.

Is an anteromedial minimally invasive approach for middle and distal third humeral fractures feasible? A cadaveric study and clinical case series.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic injury to the radial nerve is a risk in surgical treatment for extraarticular fractures of the middle and distal third of the humerus. We aimed to investigate the safety, feasibility and advantages of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) via an anteromedial approach in the treatment of middle and middle-distal humeral fractures and to evaluate proximity to neurovascular structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, 13 adult cadaver arms were used to simulate a minimally invasive surgical approach to the anteromedial humerus followed by fixation with a locking compression plate (LCP), and several sets of anatomical data were measured to clarify the possible risk of iatrogenic vascular and nerve injury in this surgical approach. Then, a case series study of 12 patients with humeral fractures who were treated with this surgical approach was conducted between 2017 and 2020. RESULTS: The average humeral length was 29.22 ± 1.62 cm, the average width of the medial epicondyle of the humerus was 1.31 ± 0.17 cm, and the average distance from the vertex of the medial epicondyle to the median nerve was 2.96 ± 1.62 cm. Furthermore, the safe area for distal humeral screw placement was 6.28 ± 0.39 cm, and the average distance from the tip of the distal end of the screw in the medial epicondyle to the ulnar nerve was 1.7 ± 1.25 mm. None of the 12 patients had nerve damage or an incisional infection after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: The new approach was performed as described, and no cases of iatrogenic nerve palsy occurred. This approach can be used as an alternative for the treatment of extraarticular fractures of the middle and distal thirds of the humerus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Two common ways of assessing the clinical relevance of treatment outcomes are the minimal important difference (MID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The former represents the smallest change in the given outcome that makes people feel better, while the latter is the symptom level at which patients feel well. METHODS: We recruited 124 patients with a humeral shaft fracture to a randomised controlled trial comparing surgery to nonsurgical care. Outcome instruments included the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, the Constant-Murley score, and two numerical rating scales (NRS) for pain (at rest and on activities). A reduction in DASH and pain scores, and increase in the Constant-Murley score represents improvement. We used four methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve, the mean difference of change, the mean change, and predictive modelling methods) to determine the MID, and two methods (the ROC and 75th percentile) for the PASS. As an anchor for the analyses, we assessed patients' satisfaction regarding the injured arm using a 7-item Likert-scale. RESULTS: The change in the anchor question was strongly correlated with the change in DASH, moderately correlated with the change of the Constant-Murley score and pain on activities, and poorly correlated with the change in pain at rest (Spearman's rho 0.51, -0.40, 0.36, and 0.15, respectively). Depending on the method, the MID estimates for DASH ranged from -6.7 to -11.2, pain on activities from -0.5 to -1.3, and the Constant-Murley score from 6.3 to 13.5. The ROC method provided reliable estimates for DASH (-6.7 points, Area Under Curve [AUC] 0.77), the Constant-Murley Score (7.6 points, AUC 0.71), and pain on activities (-0.5 points, AUC 0.68). The PASS estimates were 14 and 10 for DASH, 2.5 and 2 for pain on activities, and 68 and 74 for the Constant-Murley score with the ROC and 75th percentile methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study provides credible estimates for the MID and PASS values of DASH, pain on activities and the Constant-Murley score, but not for pain at rest. The suggested cut-offs can be used in future studies and for assessing treatment success in patients with humeral shaft fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01719887, first registration 01/11/2012.