Background: Fractures of humeral shaft in adults are common injuries. Humeral shafts non-union either from late presentation after initial treatment by traditional bone setters or failed non-operative orthodox care is...Background: Fractures of humeral shaft in adults are common injuries. Humeral shafts non-union either from late presentation after initial treatment by traditional bone setters or failed non-operative orthodox care is a major problem in this part of the world. This non-union is a major treatment challenge with increased cost of care and morbidity in this part of the world. Humeral shaft non-union can be treated with locked intra-medullary nailing (LIMN) or dynamic compression plating (DCP). Study on comparison of these methods of fixation in this part of the world is scarce in literature search, hence the reason for this study. Objective: The objectives of this study are: (1) to compare early clinical outcome following fixation of humeral shaft fracture nonunion with DCP versus LIMN;(2) to compare the time of radiologic fracture union of DCP with LIMN;(3) to compare complications following fixation of humeral shaft fracture nonunion with DCP versus LIMN. Patients and Methods: This was a randomized control study done for 2 years in which fifty adult patients with humeral shaft non-union were recruited. The patients were grouped into 2 (P = DCP & N = LIMN). Forty five of the patients completed the follow up periods of the study and then analyzed. The P group had ORIF with DCP while the N group had ORIF with LIMN. Both groups had grafting with cancellous bones. Each patient was followed up for a period of 6 months at the time which radiographic union is expected. Any patient without clinical and/or radiographic evidence of union after six months of surgery was diagnosed as having recurrent non-union. The data generated was analyzed using SPSS Version 23. The results were presented in charts and tables. The paired t-test was used while considering p value Result: Forty five patients completed follow up. There was a male preponderance (4:1), right humerus predominated (3:2). Motor vehicular accidents were the commonest cause of the fractures (62%). Most non-union fractures occurred at the level of the middle 3<sup>rd</sup> of the humeral shaft (60%). Failed TBS treatment was the commonest indication for the osteosynthesis (71%). More patients had plating (53%) compared to 47% who had LIMN. Most patients (93.4%) had union between 3 to 6 months irrespective of fixation type with no significant statistical difference between the union rate of DCP and LIMN (p value 0.06) with similar functional outcome and complication rates irrespective of the type of fixation. Conclusion: This study showed that the success rates in term of fracture union, outcome functional grades and complication rates were not directly dependent on the types of the fixation: plating or locked intra-medullary nailing.展开更多
目的比较动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)、解剖型锁定钛板(locking compression plate,LCP)、防旋型股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)、人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法527例老年股骨转...目的比较动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)、解剖型锁定钛板(locking compression plate,LCP)、防旋型股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)、人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法527例老年股骨转子间骨折中DHS治疗182例,LCP治疗201例,PFNA治疗71例,人工股骨头置换73例。结果DHS、LCP、PFNA、人工股骨头置换组手术时间相当,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);PFNA组术中出血量明显少于DHS、LCP、人工股骨头置换组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但卧床时间DHS、LCP组明显长于PFNA、人工股骨头置换组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);末次随访Harris评分标准评定优良率DHS组明显低于LCP、PFNA、人工股骨头置换组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 PFNA是治疗老年股骨转子间骨折理想的内固定方式,人工股骨头置换适用于75岁以上高龄不稳定型转子间骨折并且合并重度骨质疏松的患者。展开更多
文摘Background: Fractures of humeral shaft in adults are common injuries. Humeral shafts non-union either from late presentation after initial treatment by traditional bone setters or failed non-operative orthodox care is a major problem in this part of the world. This non-union is a major treatment challenge with increased cost of care and morbidity in this part of the world. Humeral shaft non-union can be treated with locked intra-medullary nailing (LIMN) or dynamic compression plating (DCP). Study on comparison of these methods of fixation in this part of the world is scarce in literature search, hence the reason for this study. Objective: The objectives of this study are: (1) to compare early clinical outcome following fixation of humeral shaft fracture nonunion with DCP versus LIMN;(2) to compare the time of radiologic fracture union of DCP with LIMN;(3) to compare complications following fixation of humeral shaft fracture nonunion with DCP versus LIMN. Patients and Methods: This was a randomized control study done for 2 years in which fifty adult patients with humeral shaft non-union were recruited. The patients were grouped into 2 (P = DCP & N = LIMN). Forty five of the patients completed the follow up periods of the study and then analyzed. The P group had ORIF with DCP while the N group had ORIF with LIMN. Both groups had grafting with cancellous bones. Each patient was followed up for a period of 6 months at the time which radiographic union is expected. Any patient without clinical and/or radiographic evidence of union after six months of surgery was diagnosed as having recurrent non-union. The data generated was analyzed using SPSS Version 23. The results were presented in charts and tables. The paired t-test was used while considering p value Result: Forty five patients completed follow up. There was a male preponderance (4:1), right humerus predominated (3:2). Motor vehicular accidents were the commonest cause of the fractures (62%). Most non-union fractures occurred at the level of the middle 3<sup>rd</sup> of the humeral shaft (60%). Failed TBS treatment was the commonest indication for the osteosynthesis (71%). More patients had plating (53%) compared to 47% who had LIMN. Most patients (93.4%) had union between 3 to 6 months irrespective of fixation type with no significant statistical difference between the union rate of DCP and LIMN (p value 0.06) with similar functional outcome and complication rates irrespective of the type of fixation. Conclusion: This study showed that the success rates in term of fracture union, outcome functional grades and complication rates were not directly dependent on the types of the fixation: plating or locked intra-medullary nailing.
文摘目的比较动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)、解剖型锁定钛板(locking compression plate,LCP)、防旋型股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)、人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法527例老年股骨转子间骨折中DHS治疗182例,LCP治疗201例,PFNA治疗71例,人工股骨头置换73例。结果DHS、LCP、PFNA、人工股骨头置换组手术时间相当,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);PFNA组术中出血量明显少于DHS、LCP、人工股骨头置换组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但卧床时间DHS、LCP组明显长于PFNA、人工股骨头置换组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);末次随访Harris评分标准评定优良率DHS组明显低于LCP、PFNA、人工股骨头置换组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 PFNA是治疗老年股骨转子间骨折理想的内固定方式,人工股骨头置换适用于75岁以上高龄不稳定型转子间骨折并且合并重度骨质疏松的患者。
