Zachariah Whiting, Lucas Haase, Tyler Moon, Akash Raju, Robert Wetzel, John Sontich, George Ochenjele, Josh Napora
{"title":"肱骨近端两部分和三部分骨折(伴有或不伴有同侧轴骨折和头劈裂模式)的手术治疗效果比较:髓内钉与切开复位内固定术。","authors":"Zachariah Whiting, Lucas Haase, Tyler Moon, Akash Raju, Robert Wetzel, John Sontich, George Ochenjele, Josh Napora","doi":"10.1007/s00590-024-04120-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether the outcomes, including union rates, complications, reoperations, blood loss, operative time, and range of motion, differed following intramedullary nailing (IMN) or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of two- and three-part proximal humerus fractures with or without ipsilateral shaft fractures and head-split patterns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective multicenter study at three community centers and one level 1 trauma center. Inclusion criteria were two- and three-part proximal humerus fracture treated with either IMN or ORIF from 2015 to 2022 with at least three months of postoperative follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>228 patients. No significant differences in preoperative subject characteristics were observed. IMN was significantly more common with ipsilateral shaft fractures (p = 0.011). The number of fracture parts was significantly associated with treatment (p < 0.001). IMN had significantly less blood loss in two-part fractures (p = 0.016) and concomitant shaft fractures (p = 0.029), but operative time was not significantly less in any group. Union rates, complications, reoperation, postoperative humeral neck shaft angle, and postoperative range of motion were not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IMN and ORIF result in similar outcomes for proximal humerus fractures. Both treatments result in high union rates, the potential for near anatomic postoperative humeral neck shaft angles, and sufficient postoperative range of motion. IMN has lower blood loss than ORIF. IMN is a viable option for two-part proximal humerus fractures and may be effective in select three-part fractures as well. Concomitant humeral shaft fractures can be treated with either IMN or ORIF. Head-split patterns should be treated with ORIF.</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"35 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative outcomes of operative treatment for two and three-part proximal humerus fractures with or without ipsilateral shaft fractures and head-split patterns: intramedullary nail versus open reduction internal fixation.\",\"authors\":\"Zachariah Whiting, Lucas Haase, Tyler Moon, Akash Raju, Robert Wetzel, John Sontich, George Ochenjele, Josh Napora\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00590-024-04120-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether the outcomes, including union rates, complications, reoperations, blood loss, operative time, and range of motion, differed following intramedullary nailing (IMN) or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of two- and three-part proximal humerus fractures with or without ipsilateral shaft fractures and head-split patterns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective multicenter study at three community centers and one level 1 trauma center. Inclusion criteria were two- and three-part proximal humerus fracture treated with either IMN or ORIF from 2015 to 2022 with at least three months of postoperative follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>228 patients. No significant differences in preoperative subject characteristics were observed. IMN was significantly more common with ipsilateral shaft fractures (p = 0.011). The number of fracture parts was significantly associated with treatment (p < 0.001). IMN had significantly less blood loss in two-part fractures (p = 0.016) and concomitant shaft fractures (p = 0.029), but operative time was not significantly less in any group. Union rates, complications, reoperation, postoperative humeral neck shaft angle, and postoperative range of motion were not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IMN and ORIF result in similar outcomes for proximal humerus fractures. Both treatments result in high union rates, the potential for near anatomic postoperative humeral neck shaft angles, and sufficient postoperative range of motion. IMN has lower blood loss than ORIF. IMN is a viable option for two-part proximal humerus fractures and may be effective in select three-part fractures as well. Concomitant humeral shaft fractures can be treated with either IMN or ORIF. Head-split patterns should be treated with ORIF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04120-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04120-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative outcomes of operative treatment for two and three-part proximal humerus fractures with or without ipsilateral shaft fractures and head-split patterns: intramedullary nail versus open reduction internal fixation.
Purpose: To investigate whether the outcomes, including union rates, complications, reoperations, blood loss, operative time, and range of motion, differed following intramedullary nailing (IMN) or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of two- and three-part proximal humerus fractures with or without ipsilateral shaft fractures and head-split patterns.
Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter study at three community centers and one level 1 trauma center. Inclusion criteria were two- and three-part proximal humerus fracture treated with either IMN or ORIF from 2015 to 2022 with at least three months of postoperative follow-up.
Results: 228 patients. No significant differences in preoperative subject characteristics were observed. IMN was significantly more common with ipsilateral shaft fractures (p = 0.011). The number of fracture parts was significantly associated with treatment (p < 0.001). IMN had significantly less blood loss in two-part fractures (p = 0.016) and concomitant shaft fractures (p = 0.029), but operative time was not significantly less in any group. Union rates, complications, reoperation, postoperative humeral neck shaft angle, and postoperative range of motion were not significantly different.
Conclusions: IMN and ORIF result in similar outcomes for proximal humerus fractures. Both treatments result in high union rates, the potential for near anatomic postoperative humeral neck shaft angles, and sufficient postoperative range of motion. IMN has lower blood loss than ORIF. IMN is a viable option for two-part proximal humerus fractures and may be effective in select three-part fractures as well. Concomitant humeral shaft fractures can be treated with either IMN or ORIF. Head-split patterns should be treated with ORIF.
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.