| Literature DB >> 27904730 |
Eun-Seok Choi1, Ilkyu Han1, Hwan Seong Cho2, In Woong Park1, Jong Woong Park1, Han-Soo Kim1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoprosthetic reconstruction is widely applied for pathological fractures of the proximal humerus; however, functional impairment is usually unsatisfactory. The aims of the current study are to evaluate the reliability of interlocking intramedullary (IM) nailing with cement augmentation as a fixation method in proximal humeral lesions and to assess functional outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Humerus; Intrameullary nailing; Metastasis; Pathologic fracture
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27904730 PMCID: PMC5114260 DOI: 10.4055/cios.2016.8.4.458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Orthop Surg ISSN: 2005-291X
Fig. 1(A) The anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the humerus shows a lytic destructive lesion (arrow) with an impending fracture. (B) The coronal view of a T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scan shows a metastatic lesion extending to the humeral head. (C) The AP radiograph shows intramedullary rod fixation with cement augmentation and multiple proximal screws are used as a scaffold of cement.
Fig. 2Change of preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in proximal humerus metastasis. The mean improvement of VAS score (*) after surgery was 6.2.
Pain Relief and Functional Recovery
| Measurement | Mean | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| VAS* | ||
| Preoperative | 8.3 | 7.8–8.4 |
| Postoperative, 1 mo | 2.1 | 1.6–2.6 |
| VAS improvement | 6.2 | 5.6–6.4 |
| MSTS scores | 27.7 | 27.0–28.5 |
| Karnofsky scale | 75.6 | 73.4–81.4 |
| Range of motion (°) | ||
| Forward flexion | 115 | 107–122 |
| Abduction | 113 | 105–117 |
CI: confidence interval, VAS: visual analogue scale, MSTS: Musculoskeletal Tumor Society rating scale.
*Statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Forty-eight percent of patients survived more than 1 year after surgical treatment of metastasis.
Review of Literature
| Mode of reconstruction | Study | No. | Persistent pain | Function | Recurrence | Additional operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prosthesis | Bickels et al. (2005) | 18 | 0 | Satisfactory: 15 (83%) | No | ND |
| Thai et al. (2006) | 22 | 3 (13%) | Restriction: 8 (36%) | No | 1 | |
| Camnasio et al. (2008) | 36 | 0 | Good: 11 (30.6%) | 12% | ND | |
| Piccioli et al. (2010) | 26 | 0 | MSTS score: 67.8% | 3 (11.5%) | ND | |
| Plate | Siegel et al. (2010) | 32 | 5 (14%) | Return to work: 22 (69%) | 4 (12.5%) | 4 |
| IM nail | This study | 32 | 1 (3.1%) | Good (ROM < 100°): 30 (94%) | 0 | 0 |
ND: not done, MSTS: Musculoskeletal Tumor Society rating scale, IM: intramedullary, ROM: range of motion.
Fig. 4Reconstruction of a long metastatic lesion using an intramedullary nail and cement. (A) A 69-year-old female with multiple myeloma presented with a long metastatic lesion ranging from the humeral head to the diaphysis. (B) The segmental defect was reconstructed using an intramedullary nail and cement. (C) Stable fixation was maintained for 18 months after reconstruction.