| Literature DB >> 32595248 |
Dinko Vidović1, Ivan Benčić1, Tomislav Ćuti1, Domagoj Gajski1, Tomislav Čengić1, Marijo Bekić1, Mario Zovak1, Srećko Sabalić1, Dejan Blažević1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare union time between two different nail designs for the treatment of humeral shaft fracture, i.e. antegrade interlocking intramedullary nail with and without additional interlocking neutralization screws. The retrospective study included 51 patients treated with antegrade humeral intramedullary nailing between January 2015 and December 2017. The inclusion criteria of the study were proximal and middle third humeral shaft fractures. Fifty-one patients met the inclusion criteria; 23 patients were treated with antegrade intramedullary nail with additional interlocking neutralization screws through fracture site (group A) and 28 patients were treated with antegrade intramedullary nail without additional interlocking neutralization screws (group B). Medical documentation and radiographic images taken preoperatively and postoperatively were reviewed. Radiological union was defined as cortical bridging of at least three of four cortices in two-plane radiographs, with disappearance of the fracture gap. There were no significant differences in union time between the groups (p>0.05). To our knowledge, this is the first report of antegrade interlocking humeral nailing with additional interlocking neutralization screws through fracture site. Hypothetical advantages of fracture gap reduction by additional interlocking neutralization screws to promote union were not confirmed by this first clinical trial.Entities:
Keywords: Bone and bones; Fracture fixation, intramedullary; Humeral fractures; Humerus
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 32595248 PMCID: PMC7314309 DOI: 10.20471/acc.2019.58.04.10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Clin Croat ISSN: 0353-9466 Impact factor: 0.780
Fig. 1Group A at admission.
Fig. 2Group A: one month postoperatively.
Fig. 3Group A: final follow-up.
Fig. 4Group B at admission.
Fig. 5Group B: one month postoperatively.
Fig. 6Group B: final follow-up.
Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) types and subtypes
| AO type | Frequency | Percent | AO subtype | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 28 | 54.9 | A1 | 21 | 41.2 |
| A2 | 2 | 3.9 | |||
| A3 | 5 | 9.8 | |||
| B | 14 | 27.4 | B1 | 10 | 19.6 |
| B2 | 4 | 7.8 | |||
| C | 9 | 17.7 | C1 | 7 | 13.7 |
| C2 | 1 | 2.0 | |||
| C3 | 1 | 2.0 | |||
| Total | 51 | 100.0 | Total | 51 | 100.0 |
Type of intramedullary nail/time to union cross tabulation
| Time to union | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <4 months | >4 months | |||
| Type of intramedullary nail | Nail with additional interlocking neutralization screws through fracture site | 22 | 1 | 23 |
| Nail without additional interlocking neutralization screws | 23 | 5 | 28 | |
| Total | 45 | 6 | 51 | |
χ2 and Fisher exact tests
| Value | df | Asymptotic significance (2-sided) | Exact sig. (2-sided) | Exact sig. (1-sided) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 test | 2.220a | 1 | 0.136 | ||
| Fisher exact test | 0.204 | 0.146 | |||
| Valid cases (n) | 51 |