桡神经内置在肱骨中下段骨折钢板内固定术中的应用

目的:探讨在肱骨中下段骨折钢板内固定术中将桡神经内置的方法及疗效。方法:自2010年1月至2013年12月采用桡神经内置钢板内固定术治疗31例肱骨中下段骨折患者,男18例,女13例;年龄26～58岁,平均37岁;受伤至手术时间1～8 d,平均4.5 d.按AO骨折分型:A1型7例,A2型3例,A3型6例,B1型2例,B2型4例,B3型2例,C1例4例,C2型3例。患者术前均无桡神经损伤征象。采用美国骨科协会提出的DASH量表进行疗效评定,0表示上肢功能正常,1～100表示上肢功能有不同程度的损伤。结果:31例患者术后未发生与手术相关并发症,无神经损伤与伤口感染。31例患者术后获随访,时间8～15个月,平均11个月。上肢功能按DASH上肢功能量表评定,患者伤后评分76.2±11.8,末次随访评分8.2±7.4,术后随访评分与伤后评分比较差异有统计学意义(t=9.717,P<0.01),上肢功能恢复满意。结论:在肱骨中下段骨折钢板内固定术中将桡神经内置可有效避免医源性桡神经损伤。     

后正中入路内固定治疗肱骨干下1/3骨折

目的:探讨后正中入路钢板内固定肱骨干下1/3骨折的治疗效果.方法:对本院1998年3月～2003年6月23例后入路钢板内固定肱骨干下1/3骨折的患者进行跟踪随访,评定总结.结果:所有病例随访12～36个月,平均22个月.骨折全部于16周内愈合,无神经损伤症状,患肢各关节功能良好,伸肘肌力5级,功能评定优良.结论:肱骨干下1/3骨折不伴桡神经损伤患者行钢板内固定时,宜采用后正中入路.     

前方入路钢板前置内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折

肱骨中下段骨折是上肢常见的骨折,需手术治疗的肱骨骨折以往多采用前外侧入路钢板内崮定,但肱骨下段前外侧骨面形态不利于钢板放置,而且由于桡神经与肱骨的解剖关系,术中需显露桡神经,易导致医源性桡神经损伤.2003年11月至2006年10月,我院采用前方入路钢板前置内固定治疗25例肱骨中下段骨折患者,21例获随访,经临床观察,效果满意,现报告如下.     

前侧入路前内侧钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折

目的总结前侧入路前内侧钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折的临床疗效。方法采用前侧入路前内侧钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折43例。结果本组获随访13~30个月,骨折愈合时间12~32周,无延迟愈合及骨不连。8例桡神经损伤者在术后12~28周功能完全恢复。结论采用前侧入路前内侧钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折不需显露桡神经,可直视显露肱骨干,降低桡神经损伤率;钢板一般不需塑形;可获较好肩肘功能。     

桡神经内移加钢板固定治疗肱骨中下1/3骨折

肱骨干骨折多见，其中肱骨中下1／3骨折常并发桡神经损伤，既往此类骨折均采用切开复位内固定术治疗。为了避免二次手术取出钢板时损伤桡神经，我们从2001年1月～2004年12月间对14例肱骨中下1／3骨折患者采用将桡神经由外侧移到内侧加钢板固定的新方法，收到良好的效果，现报告如下。     

比较弹性髓内钉与锁定加压钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤的效果

目的比较弹性髓内钉与锁定加压钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤的效果。方法随机将68例肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤患者分为2组,各34例。A组采用锁定加压钢板内固定术,B组采用弹性髓内钉内固定手术。结果 B组术中出血量、手术时间、骨折愈合时间、骨折线消失时间、关节功能恢复优良率及桡神经损伤恢复优良率均优于A组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与锁定加压钢板内固定比较,弹性髓内钉内固定术术中出血量少、骨折愈合快、关节功能及桡神经损伤恢复优良率高。     

改良不显露桡神经肱骨外侧入路微创钢板内固定治疗肱骨干中下段骨折

目的 比较改良不显露桡神经肱骨外侧入路微创钢板内固定与常规肱骨切开复位钢板内固定治疗肱骨干中下段骨折的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析自2014-06-2018-03诊治的89例肱骨干中下段骨折,44例采用改良不显露桡神经肱骨外侧入路微创钢板内固定治疗(观察组),45例采用常规肱骨切开复位钢板内固定治疗(对照组),比较2组手...     

后外侧入路双钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折

目的探讨后外侧入路双钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2009-07—2015-07采用后外侧入路双钢板内固定治疗的21例肱骨中下段骨折。肘关节功能采用Mayo评分标准评定。结果本组手术时间80~150(115.0±32.0)min。21例均获得10~24(16.8±4.5)个月随访,骨折均获得骨性愈合,骨折愈合时间12~24(16.5±3.6)周。1例术前存在桡神经损伤症状,术中探查为桡神经挫伤,术后2个月桡神经功能完全恢复。2例肱骨外侧髁处钢板远端翘起,感觉不适。末次随访时肘关节功能Mayo评分:优15例,良4例,可2例,优良率90.5%。结论采用侧卧位后外侧入路双钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折显露充分、内固定牢靠、可以早期进行功能锻炼,临床疗效满意。     

自锁髓内钉内固定治疗肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤

目的 探讨采用自锁髓内钉内固定治疗肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤的临床疗效及优越性。方法 回顾性地复习了8例肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤患者的治疗经过及疗效。结果 所有病例骨折愈合顺利，桡神经功能恢复满意。结论 肱骨干骨折合并桡神经损伤应尽早手术探查，自锁髓内钉内固定克服了传统钢板螺钉内固定的不足，能同时兼顾骨折愈合和损伤桡神经的功能恢复，有一定的优越性。     

改良上臂前外侧人路治疗肱骨中下段骨折

目的研究改良上臂前外侧人路钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的临床疗效。方法自2006年10月至2012年03月采用改良上臂前外侧入路钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折172例,其中男117例,女55例;年龄17～65岁,平均38．3岁。新鲜骨折157例,陈旧性骨折15例;闭合性骨折146例,开放性骨折26例。结果本组病例随访1～6年（平均3．9年）,根据HSS肘关节和Neer肩关节评分标准评定疗效,优139例,良26例,差7例,优良率95．9％。本组病例切口均一期愈合,未出现医源性桡神经损伤、内固定失败、骨折不愈合、骨化性肌炎等并发症。结论改良上臂前外侧人路钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折,不需常规游离暴露长段桡神经,钢板与桡神经有软组织相隔,避免医源性桡神经损伤,钢板放置与骨面贴合,避免钢板扭转塑形,复位满意,固定牢靠,术后并发症少,恢复快,疗效确切。     

The Efficacy of Ultrasound for Visualizing Radial Nerve Lesions with Coexistent Plate Fixation of Humeral Shaft Fractures

IntroductionUltrasound has been commonly employed for depicting the morphology of the lesions in patients with radial nerve neuropathy, including entrapment, tumor, trauma, and iatrogenic injury. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of ultrasound for visualizing radial nerve lesions with coexistent plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures. This study aimed to address this special clinical issue.MethodsWe retrospectively examined the efficacy of ultrasound for visualizing radial nerve lesions with coexistent plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures based on intraoperative findings in patients who were treated in our hospital from January 2007 to June 2019.ResultsForty-six patients were included, and there was a 100% concordance between the ultrasound and intraoperative findings on radial nerve lesions. Ultrasonography revealed four types of lesions: radial nerve in continuity in thirty-one patients, neuroma in continuity in four patients, radial nerve stuck under the plate in three patients, and radial nerve transection in eight patients. The lesion radial nerve in continuity comprised two situations according to intraoperative electrodiagnostic test results, which could not be differentiated by ultrasonography, radial nerve in continuity treated with neurolysis in twenty-five patients and radial nerve in continuity treated with nerve graft in six patients.ConclusionUltrasonography can accurately depict radial nerve lesions with coexistent plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures. It provides a basis for determining the extent of nerve damage in all patients except those with the lesion radial nerve in continuity, which is conducive to making treatment decisions as early as possible.     

Trans-fracture transposition of the radial nerve during the open approach of humeral shaft fractures

The radial nerve constitutes a major problem in humeral shaft fractures; it may be injured immediately or during closed reduction or open reduction and internal fixation with plate and screws. After fixation, the nerve always runs directly over the plate without any interposed structure. If a revision surgery is indicated, the nerve is at high risk as it is usually difficult to dissect from surrounding fibrotic scar tissue or callus formation. To avoid these complications, some authors reported transposition of the radial nerve through the fracture line. We present herein the surgical technique of the trans-fracture transposition of the radial nerve during open reduction and internal fixation of humeral shaft fractures, along with our preliminary results in 6 cases and a review of the literature.     

Radial nerve transposition with humeral fracture fixation: preliminary results

Humeral shaft fractures traditionally have been managed with closed treatment. In patients with polytrauma, open fractures, and patients at risk for nonunion, open reduction and internal fixation and intramedullary nailing have been advocated. The current study describes a technique used in humeral shaft fractures that reduces the risk of iatrogenic radial nerve injury during plate osteosynthesis in fracture patterns at high risk of nonunion (highly comminuted, transverse fractures). Ten patients who had radial nerve transposition were reviewed retrospectively using the electronic records database at the authors' institution. The average age of the patients was 27 years and average followup was 25 months. All had humeral shaft fractures, AO class A3.2 in four patients, B3.2 in five patients, and C2.2 in one patient. All fractures were deemed to be at high risk for nonunion. There were no iatrogenic nerve palsies as a result of the transposition, and no infections. Two patients had delayed or nonunion, who achieved healing after a second intervention. Transposition of the radial nerve is a useful adjunct to plating of humeral shaft fractures in patients at high risk for nonunion. The technique is safe, does not cause iatrogenic injury, and protects the radial nerve during all subsequent approaches to the fracture site.     

Radial nerve transection after ballistic humeral shaft fractures: A retrospective cohort study

IntroductionRadial nerve palsy following fracture of the humeral shaft is common. However, the incidence of nerve transection in the setting of ballistic trauma is unknown. The purpose of this study was to estimate the incidence of radial nerve transection after ballistic fracture of the humerus.MethodsPatients presenting to an urban, level-1 trauma center with a ballistic fracture of the humeral shaft were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, clinical exam on presentation, and operative data were reviewed to determine the incidence of radial nerve palsy on initial examination, the incidence of operative treatment, the incidence of how frequently the nerve was directly visualized, and the incidence of radial nerve transection.ResultsOne-hundred and thirteen ballistic humeral shaft fractures were identified. Of these, 30 (26.5%) patients had a complete radial nerve palsy on exam. Of patients with a radial nerve palsy, on exam 20 were taken to the operating room and the nerve was visualized in 17 of those cases. There 2 were partially lacerated nerves and 12 nerves were completely transected. Thus, in patients with a complete nerve deficit on examination who underwent operative treatment with nerve exploration, the rate of nerve transection was 70.6%. The lower bound rate of nerve transection for all patients with radial nerve palsy (assuming all unexplored nerves were intact) was 40.0%.ConclusionThe rate of nerve transection in patients with humerus shaft fractures with associated radial nerve palsies is likely higher than the rate of nerve transection in similar injuries caused by blunt mechanisms. The authors recommend early exploration and fixation of these injuries.     

Posteromedial approach to the distal humerus for fracture fixation

The authors report their experience with the posteromedial surgical approach of the humeral shaft for internal fixation of fractures by plating. Sixteen patients were treated for humeral shaft fractures (14 for recent fractures and two for nonunion) below the mid-diaphysis, all without injury of the radial nerve. Patients were operated in the prone position. Plate and screw fixation on the medial side was used in all cases. Fourteen fractures healed without delay, and two after revision with bone grafting. There were no surgical complications. The posteromedial approach allows the surgeon to avoid dissection of the radial nerve, and is an interesting alternative to lateral approaches especially in cases of re-operation or nonunion. Preoperative lesion of the radial nerve is however a relative contraindication to selecting this posteromedial approach, as it does not give access to the radial nerve.     

A modified deltoid splitting approach with axillary nerve bundle mobilization for proximal humeral fracture fixation

IntroductionThe deltopectoral and the deltoid splitting approach are commonly used for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. While the deltopectoral approach requires massive soft tissue devascularization, the deltoid splitting approach needs an additional skipped incision to avoid axillary nerve injury. The purpose of this study was to describe a modified anterolateral deltoid splitting approach with axillary nerve bundle mobilization in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures and to assess its radiologic and clinical outcomes.Patients and methodsTwenty-two consecutive patients with proximal humeral fractures were treated with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis by using a modified anterolateral deltoid splitting approach with axillary nerve bundle mobilization. The patients were divided into two groups: 10 patients of Neer type 2 or 3 fractures vs. 12 patients of Neer type 4 fractures. The mean age of the study population was 63.5 years (range: 30–80 years). Six patients had valgus impacted fractures, and nine had fractures with medial comminution.ResultsFracture union was achieved in all cases. The mean time to union was 8.6 weeks (range: 6–12 weeks). Major complications, such as avascular necrosis of the humeral head and varus collapse at the fracture site, were not observed. No patients had clinically detectable sensory deficits in the axillary nerve distribution or paralysis of the anterior deltoid muscle. The mean neck-shaft angle at the final follow-up was 136.9° (range, 115°–159°). The mean visual analog score for patient satisfaction was 9.1 (range, 6–10), and the mean Neer scores were 93.5 (range, 84–100). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to radiologic and clinical outcomes except Neer scores: 95.8 (range: 86–100) in Neer type 2 or 3 fractures and 91.7 (range: 84–99) in Neer type 4 fractures.ConclusionThe use of a modified anterolateral deltoid splitting approach with axillary nerve bundle mobilization in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures yielded excellent outcomes. This approach is a useful alternative to the deltopectoral or the deltoid splitting approaches in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures.     

Unilateral external fixator in the treatment of lower third humeral shaft fractures

Lowerthirdhumeralshaftfracturesareoftenmanifestedbyoblique,spiralorcomminutedfractureswithahighincidenceofcomplicatingradialnerveinjury.Thispartofhumerusisirregularanatomicallyandneartheelbowjoint.Soitisdifficult toselectproperinternalfixationinstrumentswhile exploringradialnervethroughanterolateralapproach,whichaddsdifficultyinthetreatmentofthiskindof fractures.Inrecent6yearsweusedunilateralexternal fixatorstotreatsuchkindoffracturesinourdepartment andsatisfactoryresultswereachieved.METHOD…     

Intramedullary Nailing of Humeral Head and Humeral Shaft Fractures

Abstract There is an increasing interest in intramedullary nailing for humeral fractures. Starting with diaphyseal fractures, now also proximal metaphyseal fractures of the humerus can be nailed with satisfying results. Basic ideas for humeral nailing are less invasive approaches to the humerus, less soft tissue damage, e.g. lower rates of radial nerve palsy, closed reduction and the biomechanical aspects of a central implant with elastic fixation properties. Nailing of diaphyseal humeral shaft fractures is an equivalent alternative to plating; nailing of proximal metaphyseal humeral fractures is still new and needs more reliable scientific data to clear its advantages compared to other fixation techniques. Nailing of distal metaphyseal humeral fractures is no serious option at the moment. Angular stable interlocking systems show better fixation qualities for proximal fractures or fracture components. Although in very osteoporotic bone cutouts are registered. Static interlocking is advisable. High torsional stability of the fracture fixation has to be achieved, since significant torsional load occurs during the usual movement of the upper limbs. As there is an important learning curve, possible complications of intramedullary nailing have to be kept in mind and avoided by a careful operation technique.