Kulkarni Vidisha Sunil, Kulkarni Madhura Sujay, Kulkarni Govind Shivram, Goyal Vaibhav, Kulkarni Milind Govind
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Swasthiyog Pratishthan Fracture and Orthopaedic Hospital, Miraj 416410, India.
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Swasthiyog Pratishthan Fracture and Orthopaedic Hospital, Miraj 416410, India.
Injury. 2017 Aug;48 Suppl 2:S8-S13. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30487-4.
The three currently used methods of treatment: namely open reduction plate osteosynthesis (ORPO), Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), antegrade intramedullary nailing(IMN) are all reported as satisfactory procedures for treatment of humeral shaft fractures. However none of the published reports have a comparison of superiority of one procedure over the other. We evaluated the clinical, radiological and functional outcome of the three procedures.
We studied adult patients with humerus shaft fractures over a period of 2 years from May 2014 to May 2016 in a level 1 trauma center. Forty-four were treated with IMN, 34 treated with ORPO, and 34 with MIPO. The null hypothesis tested in this study is that there is no difference between IMN, ORPO, MIPO with respect to union time, surgical time, complication rate, non-union rate and functional outcome. Functional outcome was studied by comparing the UCLA shoulder and MEP scores in the three groups.
112 patients were studied consisting of 83 males and 29 females with mean age of 39 years (range 18-70). IMN group showed early union with mean of 12.73 weeks compared to MIPO (14.45 weeks) and ORPO(13.58 weeks), (p<0.05). MIPO had no events of non-union, as compared to ORPO (5 non-unions) and IMN (10 non-unions), (p=0.04). The range of movement at the shoulder with the UCLA score was significantly better with a score of 32.26 in MIPO as compared to 27.54 in IMN and 28.82 in ORPO (p<0.05). The difference in MEPS score in the three groups was not significant (p=0.31). IMN required a mean of 117.95 minutes intraoperatively as compared to 131 and 150.58 mins in MIPO, ORPO respectively.
MIPO is overall better with respect to non-union, functional outcome and complications rate. The surgical time depends on the surgeons' skill and learning curve. Thus considering the advantages and risks involved in the various procedure and surgical acumen, each case should be individualized to have a good outcome. We advocate that MIPO can be safely used as an alternative in treating these fractures.
目前使用的三种治疗方法,即切开复位钢板内固定术(ORPO)、微创钢板内固定术(MIPO)、顺行髓内钉固定术(IMN),均被报道为治疗肱骨干骨折的满意方法。然而,已发表的报告中均未对这三种方法的优越性进行比较。我们评估了这三种方法的临床、影像学和功能结果。
我们在一家一级创伤中心研究了2014年5月至2016年5月期间的成年肱骨干骨折患者。44例接受IMN治疗,34例接受ORPO治疗,34例接受MIPO治疗。本研究检验的原假设是,IMN、ORPO、MIPO在愈合时间、手术时间、并发症发生率、不愈合率和功能结果方面没有差异。通过比较三组患者的加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)肩关节评分和改良肘关节评分(MEP)来研究功能结果。
共研究了112例患者,其中男性83例,女性29例,平均年龄39岁(范围18 - 70岁)。IMN组平均12.73周实现早期愈合,而MIPO组为14.45周,ORPO组为13.58周,(p<0.05)。与ORPO(5例不愈合)和IMN(10例不愈合)相比,MIPO组无不愈合病例,(p = 0.04)。MIPO组UCLA肩关节评分的活动范围明显更好,评分为32.26,而IMN组为27.54,ORPO组为28.82,(p<0.05)。三组MEP评分差异不显著(p = 0.31)。IMN术中平均需要117.95分钟,而MIPO组和ORPO组分别为131分钟和150.58分钟。
MIPO在不愈合、功能结果和并发症发生率方面总体表现更好。手术时间取决于外科医生的技术和学习曲线。因此,考虑到各种手术方法的优缺点及手术技巧,每个病例都应个体化处理以获得良好的结果。我们主张MIPO可安全地用作治疗这些骨折的替代方法。