| Literature DB >> 28250878 |
Louaste Jamal1, Taoufik Cherrad1, Hicham Bousbaa1, Mohammed Wahidi1, Larbi Amhajji1, Khalid Rachid1.
Abstract
Antegrade intramedullary nailing has become the gold standard to treat two-, three-, and four-part cephalo-tuberosity fractures. We report a retrospective study of 6 patients who have undergone centro-medullary nailing since January 2012. Mean follow-up was 12 months; the average age was 57 years. Clinical evaluation was based on gross and weighted Constant and Murley score, based on the age and sex, compared to the "normal" body surface area. Radiological assessment allowed us to evaluate bone healing, the occurrence of osteonecrosis of femoral head or of post-traumatic arthrosis. Radiological examination focused even on the state of the tuberosities and on the existence or not of osteolysis of the greater tubercle of the humerus. It was also used to identify the criteria for good reduction, namely cephalic cap angle and diaphyseal axis (αF) in face views. All patients underwent the same surgical procedure. Constant and Murley score for all patients was 64.13 points. Weighted score based on age and sex was 73%. Joint mobility was estimated at an average of 116° for all patients in anterior elevation, 99.9° in lateral elevation, and 42° in external rotation. Average αF angle was 42°. All patients met criteria for good reduction, namely αF. Centro-medullary nailing allows simple and cost-effective bone synthesis with very promising functional results. Comminuted fractures and osteoporosis may limit these indications.Entities:
Keywords: Fracture; humerus; nailing; osteosynthesis; reverse prothesis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28250878 PMCID: PMC5321147 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2016.25.54.9730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Répartition de la série selon les différents types fracturaires
| Fr a 2 fragments | Fr a 3 fragments | Fr a 4 fragments | Total (06 cas) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nombre de patients | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Age moyen | 55 | 57 | 59 | 57 |
| Femmes | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Hommes | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Coté dominant | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Figure 1Contrôle préopératoire par amplificateur de brillance, noter la bonne réduction et le bon positionnement des vis céphaliques
Figure 2Femme âgée de 50 ans présentant une fracture a 3 fragments
Figure 3Contrôle radiologique a 3 mois d’évolution, noter la consolidation des fragments en bonne
Figure 4Très bon résultat fonctionnel a 3 mois postopératoire
Résultat fonctionnel selon le type fracturaire
| Neer 2 | Neer 3 | Neer 4 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C Brut | 70.5 | 64.3 | 57.6 |
|
| C Pondéré | 84% | 75.5% | 67% |
|
| Elévation ant | 131° | 122° | 95° |
|
| Elévation latérale | 115° | 105° | 79° |
|
| Rotation externe | 51° | 43° | 31° |
|
| Douleur | 12.5 | 11 | 10 |
|
Figure 5Fracture à 4 fragments chez une patiente âgée de 58
Figure 6Contrôle radiologique à 4 mois évolution noté bien la consolidation avec une très bonne réduction
Critères radiologiques de réduction chez nos patients en fonction de leur fracture
| Neer 2 | Neer 3 | Neer 4 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| αF | 47° | 40.5° | 39° | 42.16° |
| Mauvaise réduction | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bascul post | 0 | 0 | 0 |