累加性环扎造成的损伤:肱骨干骨折的手术治疗会对桡神经造成损伤吗?]

4区 医学 Q2 Medicine
Unfallchirurg Pub Date : 2022-02-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-24 DOI:10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8
F von der Helm, J Reuter, L Adolf-Lisitano, E Mayr, S Förch
{"title":"累加性环扎造成的损伤:肱骨干骨折的手术治疗会对桡神经造成损伤吗?]","authors":"F von der Helm,&nbsp;J Reuter,&nbsp;L Adolf-Lisitano,&nbsp;E Mayr,&nbsp;S Förch","doi":"10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In many cases the treatment of humeral shaft fractures is challenging and despite the large diversity of available approaches, no standard treatment exists. In addition to conservative treatment, intramedullary nails and plate osteosynthesis are competing methods for healing humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, cerclage is considered to be an additive treatment for spiral fractures; however, this also increases the risk of radial nerve neuropathy and is said to compromise the perfusion of bone fragments. The goal of this study was to investigate secondary radial nerve neuropathy using additive and limited invasive cerclages for nail osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the present study a total of 102 patients with humeral shaft fractures were clinically and neurologically re-examined after having been treated with nail osteosynthesis and additive cerclage via a limited invasive access over the past 5 years. In total 193 cerclages with limited invasive access were inserted during this time period.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusion: </strong>Of the patients four (3.9%) showed a secondary radial neuropathy during operative stabilization. Neurophysiological and neurosonographic examinations revealed that this had not been caused by compromising, embedding or severance of the radial nerve due to the cerclage. Two out of these nerve lesions recovered spontaneously within 3 and 6 months, respectively. The other two cases could not be documented over a period of 12 months due to death of the patient. With 3.9% of iatrogenic radial nerve lesions the rate of nerve lesions falls into the lower range of that which has previously been described in the literature for nerve lesions due to operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures (3-12%). We thus conclude that there is no increased risk for iatrogenic injury of the radial nerve using additive and limited invasive cerclage.</p>","PeriodicalId":49397,"journal":{"name":"Unfallchirurg","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Compromising due to additive cerclages : Can surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures cause damage to the radial nerve?]\",\"authors\":\"F von der Helm,&nbsp;J Reuter,&nbsp;L Adolf-Lisitano,&nbsp;E Mayr,&nbsp;S Förch\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In many cases the treatment of humeral shaft fractures is challenging and despite the large diversity of available approaches, no standard treatment exists. In addition to conservative treatment, intramedullary nails and plate osteosynthesis are competing methods for healing humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, cerclage is considered to be an additive treatment for spiral fractures; however, this also increases the risk of radial nerve neuropathy and is said to compromise the perfusion of bone fragments. The goal of this study was to investigate secondary radial nerve neuropathy using additive and limited invasive cerclages for nail osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the present study a total of 102 patients with humeral shaft fractures were clinically and neurologically re-examined after having been treated with nail osteosynthesis and additive cerclage via a limited invasive access over the past 5 years. In total 193 cerclages with limited invasive access were inserted during this time period.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusion: </strong>Of the patients four (3.9%) showed a secondary radial neuropathy during operative stabilization. Neurophysiological and neurosonographic examinations revealed that this had not been caused by compromising, embedding or severance of the radial nerve due to the cerclage. Two out of these nerve lesions recovered spontaneously within 3 and 6 months, respectively. The other two cases could not be documented over a period of 12 months due to death of the patient. With 3.9% of iatrogenic radial nerve lesions the rate of nerve lesions falls into the lower range of that which has previously been described in the literature for nerve lesions due to operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures (3-12%). We thus conclude that there is no increased risk for iatrogenic injury of the radial nerve using additive and limited invasive cerclage.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Unfallchirurg\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Unfallchirurg\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/3/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Unfallchirurg","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-021-00995-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:在许多情况下,肱骨干骨折的治疗是具有挑战性的,尽管有多种可用的方法,但没有标准的治疗方法。除了保守治疗外,髓内钉和钢板内固定是治疗肱骨干骨折的竞争性方法。此外,环扎术被认为是螺旋骨折的附加治疗;然而,这也增加了桡神经病变的风险,据说会损害骨碎片的灌注。本研究的目的是探讨继发性桡神经病变,使用添加性和有限侵入性环扎术治疗肱骨干骨折。方法:本研究对102例肱骨干骨折患者进行临床和神经学检查,这些患者在过去的5年中通过有限侵入性通路进行了钉内固定和加性环扎治疗。在这段时间内,共植入了193个具有有限侵入性通路的环夹。结果与结论:4例(3.9%)患者在手术稳定期间出现继发性桡骨神经病变。神经生理学和神经超声检查显示,这不是由于环扎引起的桡神经的妥协、嵌入或分离引起的。其中2例神经损伤分别在3个月和6个月内自行恢复。另外两个病例由于患者死亡,在12个月内无法记录。医源性桡神经病变占3.9%,与文献中肱骨骨干骨折手术治疗引起的神经病变(3-12%)相比,神经病变的发生率较低。因此,我们得出结论,使用附加和有限侵入性环扎术不会增加桡神经医源性损伤的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

[Compromising due to additive cerclages : Can surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures cause damage to the radial nerve?]

[Compromising due to additive cerclages : Can surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures cause damage to the radial nerve?]

[Compromising due to additive cerclages : Can surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures cause damage to the radial nerve?]

[Compromising due to additive cerclages : Can surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures cause damage to the radial nerve?]

Background: In many cases the treatment of humeral shaft fractures is challenging and despite the large diversity of available approaches, no standard treatment exists. In addition to conservative treatment, intramedullary nails and plate osteosynthesis are competing methods for healing humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, cerclage is considered to be an additive treatment for spiral fractures; however, this also increases the risk of radial nerve neuropathy and is said to compromise the perfusion of bone fragments. The goal of this study was to investigate secondary radial nerve neuropathy using additive and limited invasive cerclages for nail osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures.

Methods: In the present study a total of 102 patients with humeral shaft fractures were clinically and neurologically re-examined after having been treated with nail osteosynthesis and additive cerclage via a limited invasive access over the past 5 years. In total 193 cerclages with limited invasive access were inserted during this time period.

Results and conclusion: Of the patients four (3.9%) showed a secondary radial neuropathy during operative stabilization. Neurophysiological and neurosonographic examinations revealed that this had not been caused by compromising, embedding or severance of the radial nerve due to the cerclage. Two out of these nerve lesions recovered spontaneously within 3 and 6 months, respectively. The other two cases could not be documented over a period of 12 months due to death of the patient. With 3.9% of iatrogenic radial nerve lesions the rate of nerve lesions falls into the lower range of that which has previously been described in the literature for nerve lesions due to operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures (3-12%). We thus conclude that there is no increased risk for iatrogenic injury of the radial nerve using additive and limited invasive cerclage.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Unfallchirurg
Unfallchirurg 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Der Unfallchirurg is an internationally recognised publication organ. The journal deals with all aspects of accident surgery and reconstruction surgery and serves the continuing medical education of surgeons and accident surgeons with own practices and those working in hospitals. Practically-oriented works provide an overview on selected topics and offer the reader a summary of current findings from all fields of accident surgery. Besides the imparting of relevant background knowledge, the focus is on the assessment of scientific findings under consideration of practical experience. The reader is given concrete recommendations for his/her practical work.
×
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