Lori R Chambers1, Parker Juels1, Cyril Mauffrey1, Joshua A Parry2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Denver Health Medical Center, 777 Bannock St, MC 0188, Denver, CO, 80204, USA. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Denver Health Medical Center, 777 Bannock St, MC 0188, Denver, CO, 80204, USA. Joshua.alan.parry@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Humerus shaft fractures are commonly acutely immobilized with coaptation splints (CS), which can be difficult to apply and poorly tolerated by the patient. Functional splints (FS), which work on the same principle as functional braces, are an alternative to CS. The purpose of this study was to directly compare CS and FS in terms of application and fracture reduction. METHODS: A retrospective review identified humeral shaft fractures managed nonoperatively with initial immobilization in a FS (n = 19) versus a CS (n = 15). In addition, 13 residents completed a blinded survey on splint application. RESULTS: The FS and CS groups did not differ in initial fracture angulation and translation on anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs. Post-splint application, there was no clinically relevant difference in fracture angulation/translation between groups, and this persisted at the subsequent follow-up visit. All residents reported that the FS was easier to apply and took less time. CONCLUSION: This study results demonstrated the FS results in similar reductions in humeral shaft fractures as CS. A survey of residents found that the FS was easier to apply, took less time, and was better tolerated by patients. Subsequently, we prefer the FS over the CS for the acute management of humeral shaft fractures.
PURPOSE: Humerus shaft fractures are commonly acutely immobilized with coaptation splints (CS), which can be difficult to apply and poorly tolerated by the patient. Functional splints (FS), which work on the same principle as functional braces, are an alternative to CS. The purpose of this study was to directly compare CS and FS in terms of application and fracture reduction. METHODS: A retrospective review identified humeral shaft fractures managed nonoperatively with initial immobilization in a FS (n = 19) versus a CS (n = 15). In addition, 13 residents completed a blinded survey on splint application. RESULTS: The FS and CS groups did not differ in initial fracture angulation and translation on anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs. Post-splint application, there was no clinically relevant difference in fracture angulation/translation between groups, and this persisted at the subsequent follow-up visit. All residents reported that the FS was easier to apply and took less time. CONCLUSION: This study results demonstrated the FS results in similar reductions in humeral shaft fractures as CS. A survey of residents found that the FS was easier to apply, took less time, and was better tolerated by patients. Subsequently, we prefer the FS over the CS for the acute management of humeral shaft fractures.
Authors: Rafael Serrano; Hassan R Mir; Henry C Sagi; Daniel S Horwitz; Amrut Borade; John E Tidwell; John P Ketz; Brian J Kistler; Jonathan H Quade; Michael J Beebe; Brigham K Au; Roy W Sanders; Anjan R Shah Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.512