Outcomes of intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Jawad Derbas, Isam Moghamis, Osama Alzobi, Amgad Elshoeibi, Abdullah Murshid, Ghalib Ahmed
{"title":"Outcomes of intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Jawad Derbas, Isam Moghamis, Osama Alzobi, Amgad Elshoeibi, Abdullah Murshid, Ghalib Ahmed","doi":"10.1007/s00590-025-04181-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Humeral shaft fractures account for 1-3% of all bone fractures. Conservative treatment often leads to complications such as non-union and shoulder stiffness. Surgical fixation with a dynamic compression plate (DCP) has been the gold standard treatment. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) has recently gained popularity due to its minimally invasive approach and reduced risk of radial nerve injury. This study aims to compare the outcomes of IMN and plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients with humeral shaft fractures treated with either IMN or DCP fixation at Hamad General Hospital between April 2015 and October 2018. Patient demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical outcomes, and complications were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient information, and univariate analysis was conducted to compare both groups. A Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for age, gender, and polytrauma status was applied to compare time to union between IMN and DCP groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty five patients (25 IMN, 40 plate fixation) were included. Non-union rates were higher in the DCP group than in the IMN group (13% vs. 4%). Reoperation rates were also higher in the DCP group (20% vs. 4%). Postoperative neuropathy rates were 4% for IMN and 10% for DCP, with neuropathy resolution significantly higher in the IMN group (92% vs. 68%). Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and pain favored the DCP group, with 98% unaffected ROM in the plate group compared to 76% in the IMN group (p = 0.007), and a lower incidence of shoulder pain (28% vs. 98%, p < 0.001). Time to union was comparable between both groups, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.90; p = 0.776).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IMN and plate fixation effectively achieved fracture union; however, plate fixation was associated with better shoulder function, reduced pain, and higher reoperation rates. IMN was linked to a lower risk of nerve injury but compromised shoulder ROM and resulted in more postoperative pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"35 1","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11802612/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-025-04181-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Humeral shaft fractures account for 1-3% of all bone fractures. Conservative treatment often leads to complications such as non-union and shoulder stiffness. Surgical fixation with a dynamic compression plate (DCP) has been the gold standard treatment. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) has recently gained popularity due to its minimally invasive approach and reduced risk of radial nerve injury. This study aims to compare the outcomes of IMN and plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures.

Methods: This retrospective study included patients with humeral shaft fractures treated with either IMN or DCP fixation at Hamad General Hospital between April 2015 and October 2018. Patient demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical outcomes, and complications were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient information, and univariate analysis was conducted to compare both groups. A Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for age, gender, and polytrauma status was applied to compare time to union between IMN and DCP groups.

Results: Sixty five patients (25 IMN, 40 plate fixation) were included. Non-union rates were higher in the DCP group than in the IMN group (13% vs. 4%). Reoperation rates were also higher in the DCP group (20% vs. 4%). Postoperative neuropathy rates were 4% for IMN and 10% for DCP, with neuropathy resolution significantly higher in the IMN group (92% vs. 68%). Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and pain favored the DCP group, with 98% unaffected ROM in the plate group compared to 76% in the IMN group (p = 0.007), and a lower incidence of shoulder pain (28% vs. 98%, p < 0.001). Time to union was comparable between both groups, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.90; p = 0.776).

Conclusion: IMN and plate fixation effectively achieved fracture union; however, plate fixation was associated with better shoulder function, reduced pain, and higher reoperation rates. IMN was linked to a lower risk of nerve injury but compromised shoulder ROM and resulted in more postoperative pain.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
265
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.
×
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