Literature DB >> 24599202

Risk factors for fracture mobility six weeks after initiation of brace treatment of mid-diaphyseal humeral fractures.

Valentin Neuhaus1, Mariano Menendez1, John C Kurylo2, George S Dyer3, Andrew Jawa2, David Ring1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified specific subsets of diaphyseal humeral fractures for which functional bracing is less effective. The present study tested the hypothesis that a gap between fracture fragments may be a risk factor (after accounting for other potential risk factors) for fracture instability six weeks after functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified seventy-nine adult patients (forty-six men, thirty-three women; forty-two fractures on the right side, thirty-seven fractures on the left), each with an acute, closed, AO type-A2 (oblique, ≥30°) or type-A3 (transverse, <30°) mid-diaphyseal humeral shaft fracture treated nonoperatively at three different level-I trauma centers from June 2004 to August 2011. The gap between the fracture fragments was measured on the first radiographs made after the affected upper extremity was placed in a brace.
RESULTS: Sixty-three patients (80%) had documented healing of the fracture. Sixteen patients (20%) had motion at the fracture site and a persistent fracture line shown on radiographs six weeks or more after injury. In multivariable analysis, each millimeter of gap between the main fragments with the patient wearing the brace (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 1.7), smoking (OR = 5.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 25), and female sex (OR = 5.3, 95% CI = 1.2 to 23) increased the risk of fracture instability six weeks after injury (R2 = 0.38, area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve = 0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the gap between the fracture fragments is an independent risk factor for fracture instability and the lack of a bridging callus six weeks after a diaphyseal humeral fracture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24599202     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  5 in total

1.  Midshaft humeral fracture following a proximal humeral fracture: a case report.

Authors:  Dhinu J Jayaseelan; Andrew A Post; Leah D Ruggirello; Josiah D Sault
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2014-12

2.  Humeral shaft fractures: how effective really is functional bracing?

Authors:  Cezary Kocialkowski; Barnaby Sheridan
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-05

3.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of humeral SHAFT fractures compared by a patient-reported outcome: the Scandinavian Humeral diAphyseal Fracture Trial (SHAFT)-a study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dennis Karimi; Stig Brorson; Kaare S Midtgaard; Tore Fjalestad; Aksel Paulsen; Per Olerud; Carl Ekholm; Olof Wolf; Bjarke Viberg
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 2.728

4.  Treatment of Midshaft Humerus Fractures Using Early Functional Bracing: Results and Prognostic Factors.

Authors:  Georgios Arealis; Giles Faria; Milan Kucera; Cosmin Crisan; Sathya Murthy
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-05-05

Review 5.  Fracture, nonunion and postoperative infection risk in the smoking orthopaedic patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maria Anna Smolle; Lukas Leitner; Nikolaus Böhler; Franz-Josef Seibert; Mathias Glehr; Andreas Leithner
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-11-19
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.