Denies Erwin, Nijs Stefaan, Sermon An, Broos Paul
University Hospital, Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Acta Orthop Belg. 2010 Dec;76(6):735-42.
Plate and screw fixation (PSF) has always been the more common surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. However, intramedullary nailing (IMN) of the humerus has gained in popularity over the last two decades. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of midshaft humeral fractures. The study included 91 patients treated at the department of Trauma Surgery of the University hospital of Leuven; 42 fractures had been treated by plate fixation and 49 by IM nailing. Union, functional outcome, possible complications and the need for additional surgery were compared between the IMN and PSF group. No significant difference in terms of fracture union and functional recovery was noted between the two groups. There were four cases of postoperative radial nerve palsy in the PSF group, versus two in the IMN group (non significant difference). A significantly larger number of patients with restrictive pain and/or functional hindrance in the shoulder or elbow was noted in the IMN group (p = 0.0053). Problems with osteosynthesis material occurred as often in the PSF group as in the IMN group. One patient developed wound infection at the shoulder after antegrade nailing. A significantly larger number of complications was seen in the IMN group than in the PSF group (p = 0.05). A reoperation was necessary in 143% of the PSF patients and 163% of the IMN patients (non significant difference). In this retrospective study, IMN did not achieve better results than PSF of humeral midshaft fractures and was associated with more postoperative complications. Based on these findings, we suggest that plating of humeral shaft fractures should be considered as the primary treatment for all surgical indications, except for some open fractures requiring temporary external fixation, pathological fractures, humeral shaft fractures in morbidly obese and osteopenic patients, and large segmental fractures of the humerus.
钢板螺钉固定(PSF)一直是肱骨干骨折更常见的手术治疗方法。然而,在过去二十年中,肱骨髓内钉固定(IMN)越来越受欢迎。这项回顾性研究的目的是评估钢板固定与肱骨干中段骨折髓内钉固定的临床结果。该研究纳入了鲁汶大学医院创伤外科治疗的91例患者;42例骨折采用钢板固定治疗,49例采用髓内钉固定治疗。比较了髓内钉固定组和钢板螺钉固定组之间的骨折愈合情况、功能结果、可能的并发症以及再次手术的必要性。两组在骨折愈合和功能恢复方面没有显著差异。钢板螺钉固定组有4例术后桡神经麻痹,髓内钉固定组有2例(无显著差异)。髓内钉固定组中,肩部或肘部出现限制性疼痛和/或功能障碍的患者数量明显更多(p = 0.0053)。钢板螺钉固定组与髓内钉固定组发生骨合成材料问题的频率相同。1例患者在顺行髓内钉固定后肩部出现伤口感染。髓内钉固定组的并发症明显多于钢板螺钉固定组(p = 0.05)。钢板螺钉固定组14.3%的患者和髓内钉固定组16.3%的患者需要再次手术(无显著差异)。在这项回顾性研究中,肱骨干中段骨折的髓内钉固定效果并不优于钢板螺钉固定,且术后并发症更多。基于这些发现,我们建议,除了一些需要临时外固定的开放性骨折、病理性骨折、病态肥胖和骨质疏松患者的肱骨干骨折以及肱骨大段骨折外,肱骨干骨折的钢板固定应被视为所有手术适应证的主要治疗方法。