Metsemakers W J, Wijnen V, Sermon A, Vanderschot P, Nijs S
Department of Trauma Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
Department Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven; University of Leuven, B-3000, Louvain, Belgium.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Oct;135(10):1391-9. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2296-5. Epub 2015 Aug 9.
Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is an accepted technique for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Previous studies published concerns over whether this technique had higher complication rates such as nonunion and technical failures compared to plate osteosynthesis. We, therefore, conducted a single centre failure analysis to critically evaluate our results regarding IMN of humeral shaft fractures.
Between January 2000 and January 2013, 246 consecutive patients with humeral shaft fractures were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were skeletal maturity and humeral shaft fractures treated with IMN. Exclusion criteria were skeletal immaturity, primary treatment by plate osteosynthesis, primary treatment outside the University Hospitals Leuven, presence of metaphyseal fractures and the presence of pathological fractures. Negative outcome measures such as infection, nonunion and early technical failure were retrospectively assessed.
During the study period, 149 patients with 149 fractures met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 patients were lost to follow-up, two died from trauma-related causes within the first 30 days after the accident, and eight died from other causes (cardiovascular disease and cancer) leaving 125 patients with 125 fractures for a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Failure analysis showed that six (4.8 %) patients developed a nonunion. One (0.8 %) patient was diagnosed with a deep infection. In total, five (5 %) patients underwent surgical revision due to early technical failures.
IMN is a valid therapeutic option for humeral shaft fractures. Good surgical technique and soft tissue handling are important for good outcome. Currently, patient demands are receiving greater consideration. In an era where early full range of motion and rapid return to work with minimal scarring is mandatory for most patients, the use of IMN will most likely increase in popularity in the future.
髓内钉固定术(IMN)是治疗肱骨干骨折的一种公认技术。先前的研究对该技术与钢板接骨术相比是否具有更高的并发症发生率(如骨不连和技术失败)表示担忧。因此,我们进行了一项单中心失败分析,以严格评估我们在肱骨干骨折髓内钉固定术方面的结果。
在2000年1月至2013年1月期间,连续纳入246例肱骨干骨折患者。纳入标准为骨骼成熟且采用髓内钉固定术治疗的肱骨干骨折。排除标准为骨骼未成熟、钢板接骨术作为初始治疗、在鲁汶大学医院以外进行初始治疗、存在干骺端骨折以及存在病理性骨折。对感染、骨不连和早期技术失败等不良结局指标进行回顾性评估。
在研究期间,149例骨折患者符合纳入标准。其中,14例患者失访,2例在事故后前30天内死于创伤相关原因,8例死于其他原因(心血管疾病和癌症),剩余125例骨折患者进行了至少12个月的随访。失败分析显示,6例(4.8%)患者发生骨不连。1例(0.8%)患者被诊断为深部感染。共有5例(5%)患者因早期技术失败接受了手术翻修。
髓内钉固定术是治疗肱骨干骨折的一种有效治疗选择。良好的手术技术和软组织处理对于取得良好结局很重要。目前,患者需求受到了更多关注。在一个大多数患者都必须尽早进行全范围活动并快速恢复工作且疤痕最小的时代,髓内钉固定术的应用在未来很可能会更受欢迎。