Shoulder and Elbow Group, Orthopedic and Traumatology Department, Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Shoulder and Elbow Group, Orthopedic and Traumatology Department, Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jun;23(6):767-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.010. Epub 2014 Apr 24.
Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures has been described recently, but there are no randomized studies comparing the clinical results for shoulder function between this technique and locking intramedullary nailing.
A prospective randomized study was performed. Forty-one humeral shaft fractures (40 patients) were randomized to be treated with a minimally invasive plate (n = 21) or a locking intramedullary nail (n = 19). Clinical and radiographic outcome assessments were conducted at 1 year postoperatively. Shoulder function was the primary outcome, as measured by the University of California, Los Angeles Shoulder Scale. Elbow function was measured by the Broberg-Morrey score, and fracture consolidation and complications were the main secondary outcomes.
At 1 year postoperatively, no significant difference was found with regard to shoulder function according to the University of California, Los Angeles scale between the minimally invasive plate and locking intramedullary nail (31.4 points vs 31.2 points, P = .98). There was also no difference in elbow function (94.8 points vs 94.1 points, P = .96). Complications were similar between the groups, without significant differences regarding infection (P > .99), symptomatic shoulder stiffness (P = .488), and neurapraxia of the lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm (P = .475). Fracture union was achieved in all but 1 patient (2.4%) in the intramedullary nail group within 1 year after the surgical procedure.
There is no significant difference in shoulder function between antegrade intramedullary nailing and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of displaced humeral shaft fractures, despite the limited power of our study.
微创钢板接骨术治疗肱骨干骨折最近已有报道,但尚无随机研究比较该技术与锁定髓内钉治疗肩功能的临床结果。
进行了一项前瞻性随机研究。41 例肱骨干骨折(40 例患者)随机分为微创钢板组(n=21)或锁定髓内钉组(n=19)。术后 1 年进行临床和影像学结果评估。肩功能是主要结局,采用加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)肩评分量表进行评估。采用 Broberg-Morrey 评分评估肘关节功能,骨折愈合和并发症是主要次要结局。
术后 1 年,微创钢板与锁定髓内钉在 UCLA 评分量表上的肩功能无显著差异(31.4 分 vs 31.2 分,P=0.98)。肘关节功能也无差异(94.8 分 vs 94.1 分,P=0.96)。两组并发症相似,感染(P>0.99)、症状性肩关节僵硬(P=0.488)和前臂外侧皮神经神经卡压(P=0.475)无显著差异。除 1 例患者(2.4%)在髓内钉组 1 年内未达到骨折愈合外,所有患者均达到骨折愈合。
尽管我们的研究存在一定的局限性,但顺行髓内钉与微创钢板接骨术治疗移位性肱骨干骨折的肩功能无显著差异。