| Literature DB >> 25408496 |
Mir G R Wali1, Asif N Baba, Irfan A Latoo, Nawaz A Bhat, Omar Khurshid Baba, Sudesh Sharma.
Abstract
Compare the results of internal fixation of shaft of humerus fractures using dynamic compression plating (DCP) or antegrade interlocking intramedullary nail (IMN). Fifty patients with diaphyseal fracture of the shaft of the humerus and fulfilling the inclusion criterion were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Twenty-five patients were managed with closed antegrade interlocking intramedullary nail, and 25 underwent open reduction and internal fixation using dynamic compression plating. The mean age of patients with IMN fixation was 37.28 years (SD 12.26) and 37.72 years (SD 12.70) for those who underwent plating. Road traffic accident was the most common mode of injury in both groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to duration of hospital stay, operative time and blood loss. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of union or complications. The functional assessment at the end of 1 year between the two groups did not show any significant difference in outcome. Antegrade interlocking IMN and DCP fixation are comparable when managing diaphyseal shaft of humerus fractures with respect to union rates and complications. Although shoulder related complications are more in the IMN group, however, it is associated with shorter hospital stay, lesser operative time and less blood loss. This makes interlocking IMN an effective option in managing these fractures.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25408496 PMCID: PMC4278972 DOI: 10.1007/s11751-014-0204-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr ISSN: 1828-8928
Criteria for evaluating functional results (Rodríguez–Merchán)
| Rating | Elbow range of movement | Shoulder range of movement | Pain | Disability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Extension 5° flexion 130° | Full range of movement | None | None |
| Good | Extension 15° flexion 120° | <10 % loss of total range of movement | Occasional | Minimum |
| Fair | Extension 30° flexion 110° | 10–30 % loss of total range of movement | With activity | Moderate |
| Poor | Extension 40° flexion 90° | >30 % loss of total range of movement | Variable | Severe |
Associated injuries
| Other long bone fractures | Head injury | Chest trauma | Pelvis injury | Abdominal injury | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCP group | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| ILN group | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Fig. 1AP and lateral radiographs of a fracture shaft of humerus in the middle third
Fig. 2AP and lateral radiographs of the fracture in Fig. 1 shows solid union with DCP after 9 months
Fig. 3AP and lateral radiographs of fracture middle third of the shaft of humerus
Fig. 4AP view of fracture shows good union with IMN
Fig. 5Lateral view of fracture shaft of humerus shoes uniting fracture with the orientation of distal screw
Time to union (weeks)
| Up to 8 | 8–12 | 13–16 | 17–24 | >24 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMN ( | 5 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| Plating ( | 2 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 2 |
Fig. 6AP and lateral view of a united fracture shows proximal protrusion of the nail
Post-operative complications
| Superficial infection | Deep infection | Radial nerve palsy | Comminution at fracture site | Shoulder stiffness | Elbow stiffness | Delayed union | Non-union | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMN | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| DCP | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |