Department of Traumatology, Clinic for Surgery, University Hospital Center Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2011 Feb;123(3-4):83-7. doi: 10.1007/s00508-010-1523-x. Epub 2011 Feb 4.
Humeral shaft fractures account for 1.2% of all fractures and occur in a slightly younger population. Their causes include a fall from standing or from height, motor vehicle accident, but can be also pathological. In order to clarify which of both surgeries we performed in our Department for treating humeral shaft fractures had more advantages (anterolateral or anteromedial plating through anterolateral approach) we analyzed incidence of postoperative iatrogenic radial palsies and mean operation time required to complete each surgery.
During January 1992 to December 2009 on Department of Surgery, Division for Traumatology of Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, 420 patients (340 males and 80 females with mean age of 38.11 ± 9.29 years) were treated for middle third humeral shaft fracture by anterolateral approach and internal fixation using AO/DCP or LCP plates that was positioned on anteromedial humeral surface in 141 patients (33.57%) and on anterolateral humeral surface in 279 patients (66.43%).
None of the patients who had osteosynthesis by using plate on anteromedial humeral sufrace had lesions of the radial nerve. Therefore, χ(2) test revealed significantly higher frequency of postsurgical radial nerve injuries in patients who were treated by anterolateral plating than in patients where anteromedial plating was performed (χ(2) = 17.51; p< 0.05). Anterolateral plating required longer mean operation time than anteromedial plating and the difference in its duration determined by t-test for independent samples showed statistically significant difference (t= 14.57; p< 0.05).
An anteromedial plating of humeral shaft fractures through anterolateral approach was determinated to be a simple, safe, effective and also fast surgical treatment and we highly recommend it as operative technique for treating humeral shaft fractures.
肱骨干骨折占所有骨折的 1.2%,发生在稍年轻的人群中。其病因包括从站立或高处坠落、机动车事故,但也可能是病理性的。为了明确我们在外科部治疗肱骨干骨折时哪种手术(通过前外侧入路的前外侧或前内侧钢板固定)具有更多优势(术后医源性桡神经麻痹的发生率和完成每种手术所需的平均手术时间),我们进行了分析。
1992 年 1 月至 2009 年 12 月,在里耶卡临床中心外科部创伤科,420 名患者(340 名男性和 80 名女性,平均年龄 38.11 ± 9.29 岁)通过前外侧入路和使用 AO/DCP 或 LCP 钢板进行内固定治疗肱骨干中段骨折,其中 141 名患者(33.57%)钢板置于肱骨头前内侧表面,279 名患者(66.43%)钢板置于肱骨头前外侧表面。
在前侧肱骨表面使用钢板进行内固定的患者中,无一例桡神经受损。因此,卡方检验显示,前外侧钢板固定患者术后桡神经损伤的频率明显高于前内侧钢板固定患者(卡方=17.51;p<0.05)。前外侧钢板固定的平均手术时间长于前内侧钢板固定,独立样本 t 检验显示其持续时间存在统计学差异(t=14.57;p<0.05)。
通过前外侧入路对肱骨干骨折进行前内侧钢板固定被确定为一种简单、安全、有效且快速的手术治疗方法,我们强烈推荐该技术作为治疗肱骨干骨折的手术方法。