Denard Antony, Richards Justin E, Obremskey William T, Tucker Michael C, Floyd Mark, Herzog Greg A
Meharry Medical College, Vanderbilt Orthopedic Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232 , USA.
Orthopedics. 2010 Aug 11;33(8). doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100625-16.
Standard treatment for most humeral shaft fractures is nonoperative functional bracing; however, certain clinical scenarios necessitate operative intervention. There have been few studies in the literature comparing nonoperative and operative fixation of humeral shaft fractures. Two-hundred thirteen adult patients with a humeral shaft fracture who satisfied inclusion criteria were treated at 2 level 1 trauma centers with either a functional brace (nonoperative treatment group) or compression plating (operative treatment group). Main outcome measures were evaluated retrospectively and included time to union, nonunion, malunion, infection, incidence of radial nerve palsy, and elbow range of motion (ROM). The occurrence of nonunion (20.6% vs 8.7%; P=.0128) and malunion (12.7% vs 1.3%; P=.0011) was statistically significant and more common in the nonoperative group. There was no significant difference in infection rate between nonoperative and operative treatment (3.2% vs 4.7%; P=1.0000). Radial nerve palsy presented after fracture treatment in 9.5% of patients in the nonoperative group and in 2.7% of patients managed operatively (P=.0678). No difference in time to union or ultimate ROM was found between the 2 groups. Closed treatment of humerus fractures had a significantly higher rate of nonunion and malunion while operative intervention demonstrated no significant differences in time to union, infection, or iatrogenic radial nerve palsy. Nonoperative management has historically been the treatment of choice for many humeral shaft fractures, however, in certain clinical scenarios these fractures may be well served by compression plating.
大多数肱骨干骨折的标准治疗方法是采用非手术功能支具;然而,某些临床情况需要进行手术干预。文献中很少有关于肱骨干骨折非手术治疗与手术固定的比较研究。213例符合纳入标准的成年肱骨干骨折患者在2家一级创伤中心接受治疗,分别采用功能支具(非手术治疗组)或加压钢板固定(手术治疗组)。回顾性评估主要结局指标,包括骨折愈合时间、骨不连、畸形愈合、感染、桡神经麻痹发生率以及肘关节活动范围(ROM)。骨不连(20.6%对8.7%;P = 0.0128)和畸形愈合(12.7%对1.3%;P = 0.0011)的发生率在统计学上具有显著差异,且在非手术组中更为常见。非手术治疗与手术治疗的感染率无显著差异(3.2%对4.7%;P = 1.0000)。非手术组9.5%的患者在骨折治疗后出现桡神经麻痹,手术治疗组为2.7%(P = 0.0678)。两组在骨折愈合时间或最终ROM方面未发现差异。肱骨干骨折的闭合治疗骨不连和畸形愈合率显著更高,而手术干预在骨折愈合时间、感染或医源性桡神经麻痹方面无显著差异。从历史上看,非手术治疗一直是许多肱骨干骨折的首选治疗方法,然而,在某些临床情况下,这些骨折采用加压钢板固定可能效果更好。