| Literature DB >> 28149195 |
Petr Obruba1, Stefan Rammelt2, Lubomir Kopp3, Karel Edelmann3, Jakub Avenarius3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify factors contributing to the development of non-union after fixation of diaphyseal humeral fractures using Hackethal's intramedullary nailing technique.Entities:
Keywords: Humeral fractures. Fracture fixation; internal.; intramedullary. Fracture fixation
Year: 2016 PMID: 28149195 PMCID: PMC5266660 DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220162405150468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Ortop Bras ISSN: 1413-7852 Impact factor: 0.513
Figure 1(A) Anteroposterior radiograph of a 31 year old female with an AO type 12-A3 mid-diaphyseal fracture of the humerus; (B) Postoperative radiograph showing complete filling of the medullary cavity with the elastic nails; (C) Follow-up at 10 months after surgery shows bony union; (D) Follow-up at one year after implant removal.
Non-union patient group - basic data.
| Patient Number | Gender | Age (years old) | Fracture location | Fracture type (AO) | Reason of non-union development |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 69 | Middle diaphysis | 12C3 | Inadequate indication |
| 2 | F | 69 | Middle/proximal third of diaphysis | 12B3 | Incorrect technique |
| 3 | F | 67 | Middle diaphysis | 12B2 | Incorrect technique |
| 4 | M | 66 | Middle/proximal third of diaphysis | 12A1 | Incorrect technique |
| 5 | F | 37 | Proximal third of diaphysis | 12C3 | Inadequate indication, incorrect technique, noncompliance |
| 6 | F | 63 | Middle diaphysis | 12B2 | Incorrect technique |
Non-union patient group - treatment.
| Patient Number | Time to revision surgery (months) | Method | Bony healing (months) | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13 | UHN* | 13+6 M | |
| 2 | 36 | Hackethal | no | Died before healing occurred |
| 3 | 4 | UHN* | 4+5 M | |
| 4 | 15 | Plate | 15+5 M | Spastic quadruparesis |
| 5 | 21 | Locking plate | 21+7 M | Noncompliance |
| 6 | 5 | UHN* | 5+8 + 8 M | 2nd revision surgery using plate 13 months after injury |
* UHN: Unreamed humeral nail.
Comparison between the patient groups.
| Union group | Non-union group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 150 | 6 | - |
| Mean Age (range), years old | 52.6 (16-89) | 61.8 (37-69) | 0.132 |
| Male / female ratio | 1.31 | 0.5 | 0.407 |
| Smokers | 37% | 33% | 1 |
| Diabetics | 10% | 33% | 0.129 |
| High energy injury | 52% | 67% | 0.684 |
| Middle diaphyseal fracture | 67% | 67% | |
| Proximal diaphyseal fracture | 26% | 33% | |
| AO type A fracture | 62% | 17% | |
| AO type B fracture | 36% | 50% | |
| AO type C fracture | 2% | 33% | 0.012 |
| Incorrect technique | 6% | 83% | <0.0001 |
Figure 2(A) Anteroposterior radiograph of a 37 year old female with an AO type 12-C3 mid-diaphyseal fracture of the humerus. (B) A radiograph obtained two days after surgery demonstrates that the medullar cavity is filled incompletely with implants and a slight distraction of the fragments; (C) Follow-up at 6 months after surgery shows no signs of bony consolidation with slight dislocation; (D) Follow-up radiograph at 18 months shows hypertrophic non-union with further dislocation and hardware failure. Non-union was treated surgically with removal of the elastic nails, resection of the pseudoarthrosis and interlocking plate fixation with cancellous bone grafting from the iliac crest; (E) At 21 months (3 months after revision surgery), union was finally obtained.