Locked antegrade intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures

This paper reports the results of treating 35 humeral shaft fractures with antegrade nailing in patients between the ages of 25 and 92 (mean 64.5): 14 patients were aged between 25 and 59, and 21 between 66 and 92. The nail was set in place proximally with a spiral blade and distally with 1 or 2 screws. In the first 14 cases, uncannulated humeral nailing (UHN) was carried out, and in the next 21 cannulated humeral nailing (CHN). The latter technique uses a guide wire which, in cases of an error in the length of the nail, is useful in that it allows another nail to be set in place. Main outcome parameters were fracture healing, shoulder discomfort, and radial nerve recovery. The DASH functional scoring system, modified according to Beaton et al. for subjective assessment was used, and range of motion was checked with the constant score. X-rays were used to assess fracture healing time and cases of malunion. Two patients developed non-union, one caused by a UHN which was too short, and the other by a nail blocked distally by a single screw. In 7 patients, consolidation was achieved, but with varus between 3 and 8 degrees (mean 5 degrees), without aesthetic or functional damage. In 33 out of 35 patients, shoulder functionality had mean DASH score results of 21.9, whereas shoulder range of motion reached a mean constant score (CS) of 26.5 (78.8%) with respect to the opposite shoulder. In 5 cases of stiffness, the UHN turned out to be insufficiently buried. Results improved with the CHN. Much better results were seen in the group of patients aged between 25 and 59 (mean age 43), but worse in older ones (66–92 years, mean age 78). Radial nerve palsy after surgery occurred in 2 cases, and the nerve was immediately examined. It did not appear to be trapped in the fracture in either case, and recovery was complete 6 months later. CHN appears to be a valid solution, both in younger patients, thanks to excellent results, and in older ones, who have fewer functional requirements.     

Antegrade locked intramedullary nailing in humeral shaft fractures

Thirty-three humeral nailings were carried out using the Russell-Taylor nail. Twenty-two acute fractures and one non-union united, gave an overall union rate of 70%.Eighteen patients (56%) experienced pain in the shoulder or at the fracture site. Thirteen patients (41%) had poor shoulder function. Only 17 (51%) of the patients were satisfied with the outcome. Fourteen patients (42%) needed further surgery.We conclude that antegrade intamedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures leads to a substantial risk of non-union and impairment of shoulder function. There was no significant correlation between fracture comminution and fracture healing in our study.     

Compression plating versus intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures--a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The choice of plates or intramedullary nails for operatively treated humeral shaft fractures remains controversial, since randomized controlled trials have lacked sufficient power. A meta-analysis of existing trials would improve inferences regarding the treatment effect. METHODS: We reviewed randomized trials in Medline, Cochrane and SciSearch, along with other sources of published randomized trials from 1969-2000. Of 215 citations identified, only 3 studies were included. RESULTS: The 3 studies (involving 155 patients) were pooled, since they were homogeneous (p > 0.1). Plate fixation gave a lower relative risk of reoperation than intramedullary nailing (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.007-0.9, p = 0.03). This translated to a risk reduction of 74% for reoperation when plate fixation was employed. Thus, 1 reoperation could be prevented for every 10 patients treated with plates. Plate fixation also reduced the risk of shoulder problems in comparison to intramedullary nails (RR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.4, p = 0.002). INTERPRETATION: Plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures may reduce the risk of reoperation and shoulder impingement. The cumulative evidence remains inconclusive, and a larger trial is needed in order to confirm these findings.     

分叉式交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折

目的报告肱骨分叉式交锁髓内钉(BLIN型钉)治疗肱骨干骨折的疗效。方法用BLIN型钉治疗肱骨干骨折20例,钢板治疗肱骨干骨折29例,分别从手术情况、并发症、生物力学、骨折愈合情况、功能恢复等方面进行比较。结果随访4～16个月,钢板组平均骨折愈合时间4.2月,术后桡神经麻痹4例,螺钉松动、钢板弯曲1例,骨不连2例。BLIN型钉组平均骨折愈合时间9.6月,术后无一例发生桡神经麻痹,无一例钢钉折弯或断裂,骨折愈合牢固可靠,功能恢复良好。结论肱骨分叉式交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折,虽然骨折愈合时间较钢板长,但其他方面均优于钢板。     

逆行穿带锁髓内针治疗新鲜肱骨干骨折

目的 总结使用逆行穿带锁髓内针治疗肱骨干骨折的临床经验以提高肱骨干骨折的治疗水平。方法 1999年2月－2000年6月使用逆行穿带锁髓内针的方法治疗肱骨干新鲜骨折32例,骨折均为闭合型,手术采用从鹰嘴窝上向近端逆行穿针法。结果 32例3个月时全部骨性愈合,肩肘关节活动恢复95％以上。1例出现术后桡神经麻痹。结论 逆行穿针避免了对肩袖的干扰,髓内针能有效地稳定骨折,软组织进一步破坏小,肩肘关节功能恢复快。     

顺行锁定髓内钉和动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折的系统评价

[目的]对比顺行锁定髓内钉和动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折的临床结果,并为以后此类骨折的治疗提供更可信的证据。[方法]计算机检索Cochrane library、Medline、Embase、CNKI等数据库网站,检索2016年12月以前有关顺行锁定髓内钉和动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折的文献,筛选文献后采用Revman 5.0软件进行分析,获得两种方法治疗肱骨干骨折的临床结果。[结果]最初搜索文献472篇,经过筛选后最终有8篇纳入研究,共计完成随访患者373例,其中顺行髓内钉治疗者187例,动力加压钢板治疗者186例。Meta分析表明,顺行锁定髓内钉组患者术后感染率明显低于动力加压钢板组[OR=0.34,95%CI(0.12,0.98),P=0.05],但前者肩部撞击征与再次手术率明显高于后者[OR=7.81,95%CI(2.51,24.33),P<0.001;OR=2.61,95%CI(1.19,5.72),P=0.02],术后桡神经损伤与骨折不愈合率,两者之间差异无统计学意义。[结论]与顺行锁定髓内钉相比,动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折可以降低肩部撞击征与再次手术发生率,但却增加了术后感染的发生率;术后桡神经损伤及骨折不愈合方面,两者差异无统计学意义。     

经皮微创接骨板技术与髓内钉固定治疗肱骨干骨折的疗效比较

目的 比较经皮微创接骨板(MIPO)技术与髓内钉(IMN)固定技术治疗肱骨干骨折的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2007年3月至2009年1月收治的52例肱骨干中下段骨折患者临床资料,分别采用闭合复位MIPO内固定(MIPO组)与顺行IMN固定(IMN组).MIPO组27例,男15例,女12例;年龄18～65岁,平均36.7岁;IMN组25例,男16例,女9例;年龄25～63岁,平均39.4岁.记录两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、并发症、肘关节Mayo评分及肩关节Constant评分.结果 所有患者获16～36个月(平均17.8个月)随访.两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数、骨折愈合时间及肘关节Mayo评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).MIPO组术后无骨不连与桡神经麻痹等并发症发生;IMN组术后4例发生骨不连,2例出现桡神经麻痹,1例出现内翻畸形,但功能良好.MIPO组患者骨不连发生率低于IMN组,肩关节Constant评分高于IMN组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 MIPO微创内固定技术治疗肱骨干骨折具有创伤小、术中出血量少、骨性愈合快、肩肘功能恢复好等优点,同时能减少医源性桡神经损伤的风险.

Abstract：

Objective To compare clinical outcomes of minimally invasive plating osteosynthesis (MIPO) and intramedullary nail stabilization in treatment of acute humeral shaft fractures. Methods From March 2007 to January 2009, 52 patients were treated in our department for acute fractures of middle and lower humeral shaft. Twenty-seven were treated with MIPO technique (group A) and 25 with intramedullary nail (group B) . In group A, there were 15 men and 12 women, aged from 18 to 65 years (average, 36. 7 years); in group B, there were 16 men and 9 women, aged from 25 to 63 years (average,39. 4 years). Operation time, amount of blood transfusion, hospital stay, time for union, complications, Mayo scores of the elbow and Constant scores of the shoulder were recorded in both groups and compared statistically. Results The mean follow-up time was 17. 8 months (range, 16 to 36 months) . There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in operation time, amount of blood transfusion, hospital stay, time for union, and Mayo scores of the elbow ( P > 0. 05) . There was no case of postoperative iatrogenic radial nerve palsy or non-union in group A, but there were 4 cases of non-union, 2 cases of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and one case of varus malunion in group B. Compared with group B, group A showed significant advantages in rate of postoperative non-union and Constant scores of the shoulder functional recovery ( P < 0. 05) . Conclusion In treatment of humeral shaft fractures, MIPO technique has advantages of less operative invasion, quick bone union, satisfactory shoulder functional recovery and low risk of postoperative palsy of the iatrogenic radial nerve.     

逆行交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨骨折

我科2001年1月-2002年12月采用带锁髓内钉逆行穿钉的方法治疗肱骨干骨折23例，疗效满意。     

股骨干骨折钢板内固定失效更换髓内钉固定的改良手术方法

目的 介绍一种针对股骨干骨折不愈合伴钢板内固定失效后行再次髓内固定的改良手术技术. 方法 2006年1月至2009年12月共收治8例股骨干骨折钢板内固定失效患者,男7例,女1例;平均年龄为41.1岁(19 ～61岁).7例患者钢板断裂,1例患者钢板未断但螺钉拔出,骨折均未获愈合.首次手术至钢板失效接受本次手术时间平均为12.4个月(4～30个月).手术步骤:①X线机透视下经皮闭合取出所有螺钉,留置钢板;②同侧或对侧髂骨取骨,此步骤可由另一组手术人员与步骤①同时进行;③置入髓内钉;④切开骨折端,取出钢板,确认对位良好,清理瘢痕组织并植骨;⑤髓内钉远端锁定.5例患者采用顺行髓内钉固定,2例采用逆行髓内钉固定,1例采用股骨近端髓内钉固定. 结果 8例患者均顺利完成更换髓内钉固定手术,手术时间平均为2.6 h(2.0～3.5 h),术中失血量平均为1100 mL(600 ～ 1500 mL).术后1年随访8例患者骨折均获愈合,愈合时间平均为5.5个月(4～8个月),无感染等其他并发症发生. 结论 本文所介绍的改良手术技术可减少股骨干骨折不愈合伴钢板内固定失效后行再次髓内固定的手术失血量,其技术难点为经皮闭合取钉及硬化髓腔的再通.     

逆行性可膨胀髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折的临床应用

肱骨干骨折是临床常见的一种骨折类型,约占全身骨折的1．31％。肱骨干骨折的保守治疗已取得了满意的疗效,但随着内固定物材料的发展以及手术操作的日益完善,采用手术方法治疗肱骨干骨折已得到广泛认可。尤其对于多发骨折、开放骨折、脊髓损伤（高位截瘫）或臂丛损伤、骨折伴有神经血管损伤、漂浮肘和闭合复位不满意的患者,手术治疗已经成为首选的治疗方法。白2005年9月至2007年10月,     

Treatment of pathological humeral shaft fractures with intramedullary nailing. A retrospective study

A consecutive series of 22 pathological fractures of the humeral shaft in 21 patients treated at one institution were included in this retrospective study. Patients were treated with anterograde locked intramedullary nailing. Mean follow-up was 22.7 months (range 3–60). Mean VAS score improved from 89.5 (range 80–100) to 14.5 (range 0–40). In most patients there was a satisfactory return to daily activities within six weeks of surgery. Seventeen of 19 patients reported to be satisfied. Mean duration of hospitalization after surgery was 4.3 days (range 2–15). There were no complications related to the implants. There were no operative complications and the average operation time was 48 minutes (range 35–160). The consolidation rate was 80%. We emphasize that suspicion of fracture and interdisciplinary work between oncologists and orthopaedic surgeons are of crucial importance for survival time and individual treatment.     

肱骨干骨折顺行与逆行髓内针固定的病例 对照研究

目的：比较肱骨干骨折顺行与逆行髓内针固定的疗效。方法：入选1999年3月至2006年10月间有完整随访资料的肱骨干骨折105例,分为顺行髓内针组（A组）82例,逆行髓内针组（B组）23例。对两组的手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生率、骨折愈合时间、骨折愈合率、Constant—Murley肩关节功能评分和Mayo肘关节功能评分等指标进行比较。结果：随访时间平均（31．2±20．9）个月。两组的手术时间、骨折愈合时间、愈合率及并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。B组术中出血量大于A组（P=0．002）。A组有4例（4．9％）不愈合,8例（9．8％）发生肩痛伴肩关节活动度减小,B组3例（13．0％）术中发生医源性骨折。A组肩关节功能评分低于B组（P=0．04）,肘关节功能评分两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：顺行与逆行髓内针固定均是治疗肱骨干骨折的有效方法,但逆行髓内针固定医源性骨折发生率较高,应正确选择和制备髓内针入点。顺行髓内针固定有较高的肩痛和肩关节活动度减小的并发症发生率,注意将髓内针尾埋于肩袖下方,细致保护和修复肩袖,术后进行合理的康复练习,有利于减少肩痛和改善肩关节功能。     

旋入式自锁髓内针逆行导入法治疗肱骨干骨折的疗效分析

目的 探讨旋人式自锁髓内针治疗眩骨干骨折的优点及手术方法。方法 采用切开复位旋人式自锁髓内针逆行导人方法治疗15例肱骨干骨折。结果 随访15例，其中14例完全骨性愈合，1例骨折延迟愈合，13例肩关节功能恢复正常，无疼痛，2例肩关节外展上举功能受限。结论 旋入式自锁髓内针逆行导人法治疗肱骨干骨折，其操作简单，创伤小，疗效可靠。     

A meta-analysis of plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures

Background

There is a lack of consensus on whether intramedullary nailing (IMN) or plating is superior for humeral shaft fractures.

Methods

In this meta-analysis, we combined data from PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), the Cochrane Library, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (all to Dec 31, 2011). Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two quasi-RCTs including 384 participants were selected and assessed by use of an 11-item scale. Heterogeneity was assessed by use of the standard chi-squared test and the I ² statistic.

Results and conclusions

The results indicated that two primary outcomes (total number of complications and functional measurement) were significantly better for plate fixation. Significantly lower risk of delayed-union, restriction, impingement of the shoulder, shoulder pain, and re-operation were found for the plating group, which suggested that plating is superior to IMN for humeral shaft fractures.

Level of evidence

Level II; meta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-RCTs; treatment study.     

Delayed union of humeral shaft fractures treated by closed flexible intramedullary nailing

Ten patients with humeral shaft fractures and no clinical or radiographic signs of healing after at least six weeks' immobilisation were treated by flexible intramedullary nailing using a closed retrograde technique. Bone grafting was not performed, and active movement was encouraged after operation. Nine fractures healed; the mean time to union was 10.5 weeks (range 6 to 22 weeks). One patient needed compression plating and bone grafting at 22 weeks, and another required re-operation for distal migration of the rods. There were no infections, nerve palsies or other complications. Stiffness of the shoulder which had developed during early treatment improved after operation.