Kishore Janapamala V, Kale Amit R, Patil Vishal, Sonawane Sachin, Kopparthi Rupa Madhavi, Jani Chiranjeevi, Vadlamudi Abhinay
Orthopaedics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune, IND.
Radiology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune, IND.
Cureus. 2022 Jun 30;14(6):e26443. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26443. eCollection 2022 Jun.
Background and objective Many controversies exist in the literature regarding proximal humerus fractures treated with various surgical procedures. The chosen approach decides the level of comfort with which the surgeon can perform a particular surgery in orthopedics and the amount of reduction a surgeon can bring to a fractured bone. The purpose of this study was to compare variables such as time taken for surgery, achievement of reduction, and intraoperative blood loss between the two most frequently employed surgical approaches for proximal humerus in comminuted fractures: the deltoid-split (DS) approach and deltopectoral (DP) approach. Methods All patients with Neer III and IV types proximal humerus fractures treated with Proximal Humeral Interlocking System (PHILOS) plating from 2017 to 2020 were invited to participate in the study. The exclusion criteria were as follows: Neer type I and II fractures, pre-existing limb pathology, patient refusal or patient being unfit for surgery, and patient requiring a different modality of treatment like external fixator and pinning. After obtaining consent, the dark envelope method was used to randomize patients into one of the two treatment methods. The variables analyzed were time taken for the surgery, intraoperative blood loss, anatomical reduction in immediate postoperative X-ray, and complications. The results were analyzed and findings were recorded. Results A total of 42 patients were randomized into the two groups (22 DS, 20 DP; mean age of 44.85 years for DS and 49.61 years for DP). In terms of age, gender, and Neer fracture classification, the groups were comparable. The average blood loss estimated was less in the DS group compared to the DP group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Intraoperative time was not significantly different between the DS and the DP groups. The surgeons were able to achieve a significantly higher anatomical reduction in the immediate postoperative X-ray with the DP approach compared to the DS approach. The complications (two in DS and two in DP) in either approach were equal in number although all of them were unique. Conclusions The proximal humerus fracture treatment with a PHILOS plate is considered to be a reliable option using either of the described approaches. Based on our findings, the choice of the approach has no impact on surgical time and blood loss. However, patients who were operated on with the DP approach fared better in terms of achieving reduction as assessed by immediate postoperative X-ray owing to limited exposure distally limited by the axillary nerve.
关于采用各种外科手术治疗肱骨近端骨折,文献中存在诸多争议。所选用的手术入路决定了外科医生在骨科进行特定手术时的操作舒适度,以及外科医生对骨折部位的复位程度。本研究的目的是比较粉碎性骨折中两种最常用的肱骨近端手术入路:三角肌劈开(DS)入路和胸大肌三角肌(DP)入路,在手术时间、复位效果及术中失血量等变量方面的差异。
邀请2017年至2020年期间采用肱骨近端锁定系统(PHILOS)钢板治疗的所有Neer III型和IV型肱骨近端骨折患者参与本研究。排除标准如下:Neer I型和II型骨折、既往存在肢体病变、患者拒绝或不适合手术、患者需要如外固定器和穿针等不同治疗方式。获得患者同意后,采用暗信封法将患者随机分为两种治疗方法之一。分析的变量包括手术时间、术中失血量、术后即刻X线片上的解剖复位情况及并发症。对结果进行分析并记录。
共42例患者被随机分为两组(22例采用DS入路,20例采用DP入路;DS组平均年龄44.85岁,DP组平均年龄49.61岁)。在年龄、性别及Neer骨折分类方面,两组具有可比性。与DP组相比,DS组估计的平均失血量较少;然而,差异无统计学意义。DS组和DP组的术中时间无显著差异。与DS入路相比,采用DP入路的外科医生在术后即刻X线片上能够实现显著更高的解剖复位。两种入路的并发症数量相同(DS组2例,DP组2例),尽管所有并发症均不相同。
使用PHILOS钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折,上述两种入路均被认为是可靠的选择。根据我们的研究结果,入路的选择对手术时间和失血量没有影响。然而,根据术后即刻X线片评估,由于腋神经对远端暴露的限制,采用DP入路手术的患者在实现复位方面表现更好。