Intramedullary nailing versus cemented plate for treating metastatic pathological fracture of the proximal humerus: a comparison study and literature review.

Background: Pathological fracture of the humerus causes severe pain, limited use of the hand, and decreased quality of life. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intramedullary nailing and locking plate in treating metastatic pathological fractures of the proximal humerus.

Methods: This retrospective comparison study included 45 patients (22 male, 23 female) with proximal humerus metastatic pathological fractures who underwent surgical treatment between 2011 and 2022. All data were collected from medical records and were analyzed retrospectively. Seventeen cases underwent intramedullary nailing plus cement augmentation, and 28 cases underwent locking plate plus cement augmentation. The main outcomes were pain relief, function scores, and complications.

Results: Among 45 patients with mean age 61.7 ± 9.7 years, 23 (51.1%) had multiple bone metastases, and 28 (62.2%) were diagnosed with impending fractures. The nailing group had significantly lower blood loss [100 (60-200) versus 500 (350-600) ml, p < 0.001] and shorter hospital stay (8.4 ± 2.6 versus 12.3 ± 4.3 days, p < 0.001) than the plating group. Average follow-up time of the nailing group was 12 months and 16.5 months for the plating group. The nailing group had higher visual analog scale (VAS) scores than the plating group, indicating greater pain relief with nailing [7 (6-8) versus 6 (5-7), p = 0.01]. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores [28 (27-29) versus 27 (26.5-28.5), p = 0.23] were comparable between groups. No complications, local recurrence, or revision surgery were reported until the last follow-up in either group. However, one case in the plating group had a humeral head collapse and fragmentation without needing revision surgery.

Conclusions: Intramedullary nailing with cement augmentation is a viable option for treating proximal humerus metastatic pathological fracture, providing rigid fixation and better pain relief resulting in earlier mobility to optimize functional outcomes. Less invasive procedure with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay also benefits patients. Level of evidence Level II. Trial registration statement Not applicable.