von der Helm F, Reuter J, Adolf-Lisitano L, Mayr E, Förch S
Klinik für Unfallchirurgie, Orthopädie, Plastische und Handchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Deutschland.
Unfallchirurg. 2022 Feb;125(2):138-144. doi: 10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
In many cases the treatment of humeral shaft fractures is challenging and despite the large diversity of available approaches, no standard treatment exists. In addition to conservative treatment, intramedullary nails and plate osteosynthesis are competing methods for healing humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, cerclage is considered to be an additive treatment for spiral fractures; however, this also increases the risk of radial nerve neuropathy and is said to compromise the perfusion of bone fragments. The goal of this study was to investigate secondary radial nerve neuropathy using additive and limited invasive cerclages for nail osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures.
In the present study a total of 102 patients with humeral shaft fractures were clinically and neurologically re-examined after having been treated with nail osteosynthesis and additive cerclage via a limited invasive access over the past 5 years. In total 193 cerclages with limited invasive access were inserted during this time period.
Of the patients four (3.9%) showed a secondary radial neuropathy during operative stabilization. Neurophysiological and neurosonographic examinations revealed that this had not been caused by compromising, embedding or severance of the radial nerve due to the cerclage. Two out of these nerve lesions recovered spontaneously within 3 and 6 months, respectively. The other two cases could not be documented over a period of 12 months due to death of the patient. With 3.9% of iatrogenic radial nerve lesions the rate of nerve lesions falls into the lower range of that which has previously been described in the literature for nerve lesions due to operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures (3-12%). We thus conclude that there is no increased risk for iatrogenic injury of the radial nerve using additive and limited invasive cerclage.
在许多情况下,肱骨干骨折的治疗具有挑战性,尽管可用的治疗方法多种多样,但尚无标准治疗方案。除保守治疗外,髓内钉和钢板内固定是治疗肱骨干骨折的两种相互竞争的方法。此外,环扎术被认为是治疗螺旋骨折的辅助方法;然而,这也增加了桡神经病变的风险,并且据说会影响骨碎片的血供。本研究的目的是探讨在肱骨干骨折髓内钉固定术中使用辅助性和有限侵入性环扎术导致继发性桡神经病变的情况。
在本研究中,对过去5年中通过有限侵入性入路接受髓内钉固定术和辅助性环扎术治疗的102例肱骨干骨折患者进行了临床和神经学复查。在此期间,共插入了193根有限侵入性入路的环扎带。
在这些患者中,有4例(3.9%)在手术固定过程中出现继发性桡神经病变。神经生理学和神经超声检查显示,这并非由环扎带导致的桡神经受压、嵌入或切断所致。其中2例神经损伤分别在3个月和6个月内自发恢复。另外2例由于患者死亡,在12个月内未能记录到恢复情况。医源性桡神经损伤发生率为3.9%,该神经损伤发生率处于先前文献中报道的肱骨干骨折手术治疗所致神经损伤发生率(3%-12%)的较低范围。因此,我们得出结论,使用辅助性和有限侵入性环扎术不会增加医源性桡神经损伤的风险。