Outcomes of Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation in the Management of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Cureus Pub Date : 2024-10-27 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.7759/cureus.72473
Adeel Nadeem, Hannah Abbasi
{"title":"Outcomes of Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation in the Management of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Adeel Nadeem, Hannah Abbasi","doi":"10.7759/cureus.72473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of intramedullary nailing (IMN) and open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) in treating traumatic humeral shaft fractures in adults (18 years and above). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The primary outcome was time to union, while secondary outcomes included non-union rates, incidences of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy, surgical site infections, and intra-operative comminution. Twenty-six studies, encompassing 1,674 patients (867 IMN, 807 ORIF), were included. IMN demonstrated a shorter time to union compared to ORIF (mean difference -1.06 (95% CI, -1.88 to -0.23)), with significant statistical heterogeneity (I² = 70%), and a mean difference of -2.14 (95% CI, -3.16 to -1.12) in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) subgroup analysis, which had no significant statistical heterogeneity. Both techniques had comparable non-union rates (risk ratio 0.34 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.93)). IMN was associated with lower incidences of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (risk ratio 0.48 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.87)) and surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.76)), but had a higher risk of intra-operative comminution (risk ratio 3.04 (95% CI, 1.24 to 7.44)). The studies exhibited significant heterogeneity and varying outcome measures, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation. IMN offers rapid fracture stabilization and minimal additional physiological insult, while ORIF remains preferable for achieving precise anatomical reduction. These findings highlight the importance of considering patient-specific factors and surgical expertise in selecting the appropriate fixation technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11514719/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of intramedullary nailing (IMN) and open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) in treating traumatic humeral shaft fractures in adults (18 years and above). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The primary outcome was time to union, while secondary outcomes included non-union rates, incidences of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy, surgical site infections, and intra-operative comminution. Twenty-six studies, encompassing 1,674 patients (867 IMN, 807 ORIF), were included. IMN demonstrated a shorter time to union compared to ORIF (mean difference -1.06 (95% CI, -1.88 to -0.23)), with significant statistical heterogeneity (I² = 70%), and a mean difference of -2.14 (95% CI, -3.16 to -1.12) in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) subgroup analysis, which had no significant statistical heterogeneity. Both techniques had comparable non-union rates (risk ratio 0.34 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.93)). IMN was associated with lower incidences of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (risk ratio 0.48 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.87)) and surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.76)), but had a higher risk of intra-operative comminution (risk ratio 3.04 (95% CI, 1.24 to 7.44)). The studies exhibited significant heterogeneity and varying outcome measures, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation. IMN offers rapid fracture stabilization and minimal additional physiological insult, while ORIF remains preferable for achieving precise anatomical reduction. These findings highlight the importance of considering patient-specific factors and surgical expertise in selecting the appropriate fixation technique.

髓内钉与钢板固定治疗肱骨轴骨折的效果:系统回顾与元分析》。
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较髓内钉(IMN)和切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗成人(18 岁及以上)创伤性肱骨轴骨折的疗效。我们在PubMed、Google Scholar、Embase和Cochrane对照试验中央注册中心(CENTRAL)等数据库中进行了全面的文献检索。研究的主要结果是骨折愈合时间,次要结果包括骨折不愈合率、先天性桡神经麻痹发生率、手术部位感染和术中粉碎。26项研究共纳入1674例患者(867例IMN,807例ORIF)。在随机对照试验(RCT)亚组分析中,两者的平均差异为-2.14(95% CI,-3.16至-1.12),无显著的统计学异质性。两种技术的不愈合率相当(风险比为 0.34(95% CI,0.94 至 1.93))。IMN 与先天性桡神经麻痹(风险比 0.48(95% CI,0.27 至 0.87))和手术部位感染(风险比 0.44(95% CI,0.25 至 0.76))的发生率较低相关,但术中粉碎的风险较高(风险比 3.04(95% CI,1.24 至 7.44))。这些研究显示出明显的异质性和不同的结果衡量标准,强调了谨慎解释的必要性。IMN能快速稳定骨折并将额外的生理损伤降至最低,而ORIF仍是实现精确解剖复位的首选。这些研究结果凸显了在选择合适的固定技术时考虑患者特异性因素和手术专业知识的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信