Edward Westrick1, Benjamin Hamilton2, Paul Toogood3, Bradford Henley4, Reza Firoozabadi4. 1. Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Institute, 1307 Federal Street, 2nd Floor, Pittsburgh, PA, 15212, USA. 2. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedics, University of California San Francisco, 500 Parnassus MU320W, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. paul.toogood@ucsf.edu. 4. Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Ave., Seattle, WA, 98104, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There has been little direct comparison between non-operative and operative management of humeral shaft fractures. The present study aimed to compare union rates and complication rates between these two modalities of treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a regional level 1 trauma centre. A total of 296 patients with humeral shaft fractures met inclusion criteria; 69 patients were treated with a functional brace and 227 with surgical intervention. The primary end point was radiographic union. Nonunion was defined as failure of radiological union at six months, requiring surgical intervention. Time to union, nerve palsy rate, and rate of infection were also examined. RESULTS: The nonunion rate was significantly higher in the non-operative group (23.2 % vs 10.2 %) despite higher rates of open fractures and high energy mechanisms of injury in the operative group. No significant difference in time to union was found. Nerve palsy was more common in the operative group (20 % vs 39 %); however, only two cases (1 %) of radial nerve palsy in the operative group were iatrogenic and both were transient. Infection rates were higher for the operative group (3.5 % vs 0 %). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures has a higher rate of nonunion, while operative treatment is associated with a low incidence of iatrogenic nerve palsy but higher rates of infection.
PURPOSE: There has been little direct comparison between non-operative and operative management of humeral shaft fractures. The present study aimed to compare union rates and complication rates between these two modalities of treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a regional level 1 trauma centre. A total of 296 patients with humeral shaft fractures met inclusion criteria; 69 patients were treated with a functional brace and 227 with surgical intervention. The primary end point was radiographic union. Nonunion was defined as failure of radiological union at six months, requiring surgical intervention. Time to union, nerve palsy rate, and rate of infection were also examined. RESULTS: The nonunion rate was significantly higher in the non-operative group (23.2 % vs 10.2 %) despite higher rates of open fractures and high energy mechanisms of injury in the operative group. No significant difference in time to union was found. Nerve palsy was more common in the operative group (20 % vs 39 %); however, only two cases (1 %) of radial nerve palsy in the operative group were iatrogenic and both were transient. Infection rates were higher for the operative group (3.5 % vs 0 %). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures has a higher rate of nonunion, while operative treatment is associated with a low incidence of iatrogenic nerve palsy but higher rates of infection.
Authors: Kiran C Mahabier; Lucas M M Vogels; Bas J Punt; Gert R Roukema; Peter Patka; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: Injury Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: J L Marsh; Theddy F Slongo; Julie Agel; J Scott Broderick; William Creevey; Thomas A DeCoster; Laura Prokuski; Michael S Sirkin; Bruce Ziran; Brad Henley; Laurent Audigé Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Lasse Rämö; Bakir O Sumrein; Vesa Lepola; Tuomas Lähdeoja; Jonas Ranstam; Mika Paavola; Teppo Järvinen; Simo Taimela Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lasse Rämö; Mika Paavola; Bakir O Sumrein; Vesa Lepola; Tuomas Lähdeoja; Jonas Ranstam; Teppo L N Järvinen; Simo Taimela Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Michele Bisaccia; Luigi Meccariello; Giuseppe Rinonapoli; Giuseppe Rollo; Marco Pellegrino; Andrea Schiavone; Cristina Ibáñez Vicente; Pellegrino Ferrara; Marco Filipponi; Auro Caraffa Journal: Med Arch Date: 2017-04