{"title":"Mid-Term results in adult humeral fractures with titanium elastic nail fixation versus plate and screw fixation and locking intramedullary nailing","authors":"Oğuzhan Pekince, M. Koç, S. Toker","doi":"10.51271/jorr-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Aims: To compare plate-screw fixation, intramedullary nailing (IMN), and titanium elastic nailing (TEN) as a new fixation method with respect to nonunion, complication rates, and functional outcomes in the repair of adult humeral shaft fractures.\n Methods: A total of 38 adult patients who were treated due to humeral shaft fracture at our clinic and were followed for minimum six months between January 2012 and January 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Age, sex, fracture etiology an length of hospitalization were recorded. Fractures were classified according to the Association for Osteosynthesis(AO) classification. Nonunion rates as assessed by X-ray during visits, angulation, shoulder, elbow and hand disability scores were evaluated using the DASH, Mayo Elbow and UCLA Shoulder scoring, and Stewart Hundley criteria.\n Results: There was no significant epidemiological difference between the groups. The length of hospitalization was lower in the TEN group. There was no significant difference in nonunion rates and functional scores according to the type of treatment. Angulation rate was slightly higher in the TEN group. The effect of angulation on functional score showed no influence on the functional status. The three treatment types mostly achieved excellent and good outcomes.\n Conclusion: Our study results suggest that TEN seems to be a good alternative treatment in eligible patients with humeral shaft fractures considering complications of other treatments. However, we believe that further, large-scale, randomized-controlled, prospective studies with longer follow-up duration are required to confirm these findings and to establish a definite conclusion.\n Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III.\n","PeriodicalId":313405,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopedics Research and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopedics Research and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51271/jorr-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To compare plate-screw fixation, intramedullary nailing (IMN), and titanium elastic nailing (TEN) as a new fixation method with respect to nonunion, complication rates, and functional outcomes in the repair of adult humeral shaft fractures.
Methods: A total of 38 adult patients who were treated due to humeral shaft fracture at our clinic and were followed for minimum six months between January 2012 and January 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Age, sex, fracture etiology an length of hospitalization were recorded. Fractures were classified according to the Association for Osteosynthesis(AO) classification. Nonunion rates as assessed by X-ray during visits, angulation, shoulder, elbow and hand disability scores were evaluated using the DASH, Mayo Elbow and UCLA Shoulder scoring, and Stewart Hundley criteria.
Results: There was no significant epidemiological difference between the groups. The length of hospitalization was lower in the TEN group. There was no significant difference in nonunion rates and functional scores according to the type of treatment. Angulation rate was slightly higher in the TEN group. The effect of angulation on functional score showed no influence on the functional status. The three treatment types mostly achieved excellent and good outcomes.
Conclusion: Our study results suggest that TEN seems to be a good alternative treatment in eligible patients with humeral shaft fractures considering complications of other treatments. However, we believe that further, large-scale, randomized-controlled, prospective studies with longer follow-up duration are required to confirm these findings and to establish a definite conclusion.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III.
目的:比较钢板螺钉固定、髓内钉(IMN)和钛弹性钉(TEN)作为一种新型固定方法在成人肱骨骨干骨折修复中的骨不连、并发症发生率和功能结果。方法:回顾性分析2012年1月至2015年1月在我院接受肱骨干骨折治疗的成人患者38例,随访时间至少6个月。记录患者的年龄、性别、骨折原因及住院时间。骨折按照Association for Osteosynthesis(AO)分类进行分类。使用DASH、Mayo肘关节和UCLA肩关节评分和Stewart Hundley标准评估就诊时x线评估的骨不连率、角度、肩关节、肘关节和手部残疾评分。结果:两组间无明显流行病学差异。TEN组住院时间较短。治疗方式不同,骨不连率和功能评分差异无统计学意义。TEN组的成角率略高。角度对功能评分的影响对功能状态没有影响。三种治疗方式均取得优异、良好的疗效。结论:我们的研究结果表明,考虑到其他治疗方法的并发症,TEN似乎是符合条件的肱骨干骨折患者的一种很好的替代治疗方法。然而,我们认为需要进一步的、大规模的、随机对照的、更长的随访时间的前瞻性研究来证实这些发现并建立一个明确的结论。证据等级:治疗性III级。