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":1.5000,"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.
背景:肱骨干骨折占所有骨折的1-3%。保守治疗常导致并发症,如骨不连和肩部僵硬。手术固定采用动态加压钢板(DCP)一直是金标准治疗。髓内钉(IMN)近年来因其微创入路和降低桡神经损伤的风险而受到欢迎。本研究旨在比较内固定术与钢板内固定治疗肱骨干骨折的效果。方法:本回顾性研究纳入2015年4月至2018年10月在哈马德总医院接受IMN或DCP固定治疗的肱骨干骨折患者。收集患者人口统计资料、骨折特征、手术结果和并发症。采用描述性统计对患者信息进行汇总,两组比较采用单因素分析。采用Cox比例风险模型,对年龄、性别和多发创伤状况进行校正,比较IMN组和DCP组的愈合时间。结果:共纳入65例患者(IMN 25例,钢板固定40例)。DCP组的骨不连率高于IMN组(13% vs. 4%)。DCP组的再手术率也更高(20% vs. 4%)。IMN组和DCP组的术后神经病变发生率分别为4%和10%,IMN组的神经病变缓解率显著高于前者(92% vs. 68%)。肩关节活动度(ROM)和疼痛倾向于DCP组,钢板组98%的活动度未受影响,而IMN组为76% (p = 0.007),肩关节疼痛发生率较低(28%对98%,p结论:IMN和钢板固定有效实现骨折愈合;然而,钢板固定与更好的肩关节功能、减轻疼痛和更高的再手术率相关。IMN与较低的神经损伤风险有关,但损害了肩部ROM并导致更多的术后疼痛。
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.