Page 1

Humerus is an unpaired bone, the shaft of which is totally covered by a thick layer of soft tissue.

Introduction: Humerus is an unpaired bone, the shaft of which is totally covered by a thick layer of soft tissue. Approximately 10% of all long bone fractures occur in the humerus. Fractures of the humeral shaft are commonly encountered by the orthopaedic surgeons, accounting for approximately 30% of all humeral fractures (Ward, Savoie & Hughes 1998, p .1177). Both younger and elder people suffer from these fractures. The mechanism of injury is mainly direct trauma, motor vehicle accident, and fall from height, direct blow, and penetrating injury like bullet or sharp object causing transverse or comminuted fractures. Indirect trauma due to fall on outstretched hand, twisting injuries or even violent muscle contraction results spiral or oblique fracture. Treatment of these injuries continues to evolve as advances are made in both nonoperative and operative management.


Fractures of the shaft of the humerus are usually easy to treat, irrespective of the personality of the fracture. As there is a good deal of muscle envelope around it, the blood supply is abundant and the union is rapid. There is no tendency to over-riding; on the contrary, the only danger is that the fragments may be allowed to distract by the weight of the limb and cause delayed union. The middle third is the most vulnerable in relation to delayed or non-union. This is because the main nutrient artery enters the bone very constantly at the junction of the middle and lower thirds or in the lower part of the middle third. The radial nerve is another structure at risk from fractures or operations on the humerus. It does not travel along the spiral groove of the humerus next to the bone as is commonly described; instead along most of its course it is separated from the humerus by a variable layer of muscle, and lies close to the inferior lip of the spiral groove (Reynders 2003, p.214). In general treatment of the fractured shaft of the humerus is not usually difficult. The fractured ends can be readily aligned with the patient sitting, when the weight of the forearm on the distal fragment will usually achieve an acceptable position. Support of the wrist a collar and cuff or narrow sling, allowing the elbow to lie free and unsupported may be all that is required. In the early stages when there is considerable pain a well padded plaster of Paris U-slab is very effective in relieving discomfort. After two weeks the collar and cuff bandage can be replaced by a functional orthosis for another four to six weeks. A "hanging cast" popularized by Caldwell is no longer recommended because it may distract the fracture and produce delayed union (Reynders 2003 , p.215).


Though the great majority of humeral shaft fractures unite with non-operative treatment and the complication rate after internal fixation is high, there are some well defined indications for surgery. Operative treatment has been usually reserved for the treatment of nonunion (M端ller, 1965, p.85), for polytrauma patients (Bell et al. 1985, p.295), bilateral humeral shaft fractures, floating elbow, segmental fractures, pathological fractures, distal humeral spiral or comminuted fractures in which radial nerve palsy develop after manipulation (Holstein and Lewis 1963, p.1385) and if treatment of associated injuries make bed rest necessary. Operative methods of treatment include open reduction and internal fixation by plate and screws, open or close reduction and internal fixation by intramedullary nail or semi flexible pins and external fixator. A consensus has yet to develop regarding operative treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. Intramedullary nailing is considered to be appropriate for internal fixation of long bones, as the implant lies nearer to the axis of the bone and requires less extensive exposure and less stripping of soft tissues than plating. However, intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus has the disadvantage of possible decreased mobility at the shoulder or elbow joint, depending on its site of introduction (Rakesh, Anil and Vijay 2000, p.471). Distal humeral shaft fractures are difficult to fix by intramedullary device rigidly through antegrade portal. Distal locking is often difficult and without static locking, however, fixation is not sufficiently rigid and external splintage is needed until union occur (Brumback et al. 1986, p.965). A very narrow canal in the distal part of the humerus makes


intramedullary nailing difficult. It also provides very little rotational, translational and vertical stability, unless the nail is of the interlocking variety. Various unlocked nails have given poor rate of union and have tendency to back out (Foster et al. 1985, p.860). Above all Intramedullary nail fixation demands sophisticated instruments, modern equipments and technical expertise. Among various modalities of surgical treatment Dynamic Compression Plate fixation remains the 'gold standard' according to Farragos, Schemitsch & Mckee (1999, p. 260).Compression plating, which is a classic method, was first used by M端ller et al. ( 1991, p. 457). In selected patents of the humeral shaft fractures, it is a preferred method because of its high success rate when used by simultaneous autogenous corticocancellous grafting. Though plating requires an extensive exposure with stripping of soft tissues from the bone, it permits excellent reduction and fixation and has the advantage that it does not interfere with elbow and shoulder function (Chapman et al. 2000, p.164). Open reduction and internal fixation of distal humeral shaft fracture provides good clinical result and should be carried out aiming for an early postoperative functional treatment (Pereles et al. 1997, p.580). Dynamic compression plate gives additional advantage of fixing the fragments putting the screw obliquely up to 45 0 if necessary due to its special design of holes. This ensures holding the comminuted fragments rigidly. Rigid fixation and anatomic alignment are consistently achieved with good operative technique. The choice of surgical approach should be based upon the pathoanatomy of the fracture and the preference of the treating surgeon. Four approaches are usually


applied to the humerus: the anterior approach, anterolateral, the posterior and the lateral approach. Among them the anterolateral and the posterior approaches are widely used for the distal diaphysis of the humerus. The anterolateral approach is most often used for ORIF. It provides access to the entire diaphysis of the humerus and can be extended both proximally and distally. The approach is made lateral to the palpable mass of the biceps and brachialis muscles. Although dissection and mobilization of the radial nerve are not mandatory with this approach , King and Johnston (1998 , p. 210 ) reported that the incision frequently transects branches of the lower lateral brachial cutaneous nerve, resulting in painful neuroma formation , numbness or tingling around the scar in 62 % cases.

The posterior approach provides exposure of the lower three fourths of the humerus, and is most often used for fractures of the distal third of the humerus (Henry 1966). For these injuries, the posterior surface of the humerus is relatively flat, and is therefore ideal for placing a plate. The radial nerve is at some risk during posterior exposures, and it must be identified and protected (Holstein & Lewis 1963, p.1385). The skin incision is made in the posterior midline of the arm. Superficially, the interval between the long and lateral heads of the triceps is separated. The deep dissection requires splitting the medial head longitudinally, with identification of the radial nerve and profunda brachii artery in the spiral groove. Because the nerve branches enter the muscle heads relatively near their origin and run down the arm in the muscle’s substance , splitting the muscle longitudinally does not denervate any part of it (The Humerus 2003, p.80)


The aim of this study is to assess the results of open reduction and DCP fixation with or without autogenous grafting by posterior approach in the treatment of fracture lower third of humeral diaphysis. Although there are numerous studies in the literature detailing the results of surgical fixation, most of them were performed with the use of surgeon-based or radiographic outcome measures. There may be a great deal of variation among these scores. But patients’ evaluations of outcome more closely correlate with the functional loss and are often different from the surgeons’ assessments of outcome. Patient-based questionnaires have been developed as outcome instruments and they have been shown to be reliable, valid and responsive for assessing a variety of orthopaedic conditions (Michael et al. 2000, p. 1701). Hypothesis Open reduction and internal fixation of fracture distal 3 rd of humeral shaft

with

DCP by posterior approach is an effective modality of treatment.

2.

OBJECTIVES & AIMS

General Objective: To evaluate the results of open reduction and internal fixation with the use of dynamic compression plate by posterior approach in patients with fracture distal 3rd of the humeral shaft. Specific Objectives:


• To assess the functional outcome of the treatment including motion of both shoulder and elbow joints. • To study the incidence of complications of the treatment • To ascertain the time taken for union. • To evaluate pain after the treatment.


3.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Anatomical facts: The shaft of humerus is cortical bone extending from the surgical neck proximally to the supracondylar ridges distally. The upper portion of the shaft is roughly cylindrical, the mid portion prismatic and distal portion flattened out in the coronal plane (Swanson and Gustilo 1993, p.365). The shaft can be fractured by bending or twisting forces producing transverse, spiral or oblique fractures. (Klenerman 1992,p.572). Humeral shaft can be classified by location, fracture configuration and associated soft tissues or neurovascular injuries. Fracture location can be divided into proximal, middle and distal third. Fracture configuration may be classified as transverse, oblique, spiral, segmental or comminuted with or without bone loss. Fractures may be closed or open, with open fractures further subdivided into types I, II and IIIA, IIIB and IIIC, depending upon the severity of the soft tissue injury, contamination and the presence of concomitant vascular injury. When a fracture of the shaft of the humerus fails to unite in 3 to 4months, it is termed as delayed and if union is delayed and arrested beyond 6 to 8 months, it is defined as nonunion (Rosen 1990, p. 725). Nonunion is established when minimum of 9 months has elapsed since injury and the fracture shows no visible progressive signs of healing for 3 months (La Velle 1998, p. 2579). When the fractured fragments are more than two in number it is known as comminuted fracture. It occurs due to dissipation of a large amount of energy into a bone. The bone breaks into fragments which may impact into each other or separate and become displaced (Fractures and Dislocations 2000, p.322).


Figure 3.1: Humeral shaft extends from the surgical neck proximally to the supracondylar ridges distally and is divided into proximal, middle and distal third (Swans and Gustilo 1993, p. 366. )


Figure 3.2 : Classification of fracture shaft of humerus (Gustilo 1993, p. 368) Causes of nonunion in humeral shaft fractures: Ten percent of long bones fractures are humeral fractures and 10% of humeral fractures are diaphyseal fractures (Pugh & McKee 2003, p. 48). Although majority of humeral shaft fractures heal uneventfully, nonunion is not an uncommon problem. The rate of nonunion is reported to be 2 to 10% in nonsurgically treated and 10 to 15% in surgically treated humeral shaft fractures (Sarmiento et al. 2000, p. 478). The causes of nonunion in humeral shaft fractures can be mentioned as the severity of initial injury, transverse fracture pattern, distraction of fracture, fractures at the junction of middle and proximal inadequate immobilization,

third humeral shaft, soft tissue interposition,

obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking and inadequate

treatment. Nonunion of humeral shaft fractures should be treated surgically in order to avoid problems like instability, pain and loss of function (Zuckerman & Koval 1996, p. 1025). Various surgical methods & their advantage - disadvantages: It is difficult and troublesome to treat the nonunion of the humeral shaft. More than one surgical intervention may be needed to treat them by surgical methods. Success rate decreases with an increase in the number of surgical interventions and complications are higher. Patients that are prone to develop nonunion should be wellknown to decrease the complication rate and the preferred surgical method should be well performed. Technical errors of the surgical method and insufficient follow-up also increase the nonunion rate (Grant et al. 1994, p. 257). Rigid fixation is not always


achieved in all patients by ORIF with the use of a plate and screws (Ring, Perey & Jupiter 1999, p.177 ). Various methods are advocated especially for older, osteoporotic, badly qualified bones, also for those who are operated more than one. ORIF method can be performed by the use of onlay or intramedullary grafts combined with a locked compression plate adapted to the Schuhli nuts or a blade plate in osteoporotic patients. Trotter and Dobozi (1986, p.162) tried to strengthen the plate and screw fixation by a bone cement inserted into the medulla. But this method has disadvantages of disturbing the medullary circulation and leakage of the bone cement into the nonunion line which may affect the healing in a negative way. Kassab , Mast & Mayo (1998 , p. 86 ) used locking nuts with plate and screw fixation in osteoporotic patients to increase the rigidity of fixation. Wright et al. (1993, p.804) used screws by passing them through the autogenous or allogen fibula to improve the engagement and push out strengths of the screws to the bone in similar cases. Intramedullary nailing is advised for osteoporotic and comminuted fractures in which a broad incision and soft tissue dissection is needed to apply a plate and screws. And also it is advised for the cases in which neurolysis is very difficult because of the embedded scar tissue (Lin, Hou & Hang 2000, p. 695). It is not always possible to achieve rotational stability and to close the nonunion gap by the use of intramedullary nails. Distraction occurs at the fracture sites even in applying intramedullary implants for fresh fractures. Subacromial impingement syndrome or elbow problems are


encountered in the treatment of humeral shaft nonunion due to the technique of application in the entry site. Modabber and Jupiter (1998, p. 93) compared the results of plate-fixation and intramedullary nailing in the treatment of humeral nonunion. Disadvantages of plate fixation were noncosmotic appearance due to the extensile approach, impaired periosteal circulation, possibility of iatrogenic nerve palsy, and blood loss. Advantages of this method were possibility of nerve repair because of direct exploration, simplicity of applying the plate to each segment of the humeral shaft, and also possibility of bone grafting, debridement and resection of the pseudarthroses site from a single incision in one operation. Disadvantages of intramedullary nailing are shoulder or elbow problems due to the application of

the technique, possibility of iatrogenic nerve injury and fractures,

impairment of endosteal circulation, spread of infection of the other sites of humerus, impossibility of performing the method in cases of humeral deformities, obstruction of the medullary canal, need of a second surgery for the extraction of the implant. Advantages are: this method is stronger biomechanically, preservation of periosteal circulation, less blood loss, application of the implant for away from the surgical incision. Although plate screw fixation has many disadvantages but union rates are higher in this method (Gregory & Sanders 1997, p. 15).


Many treatment methods are not available or are contraindicated in cases of infection. Debridement, excision of the necrotic tissue, irrigation and local antibiotherapy should be performed first. External fixators are performed in the presence of an infection. Torsional and shearing forces are effective on the humerus because it is not bearing a load. Today Ilizarov-type fixators are performed because they resist these forces and also gradual axial compression and / or distraction is possible with this type fixator (Kocaoglu et al. 2001, p. 1). External fixators have an advantage of less blood loss and it is possible to correct the deformity and shortness simultaneously. Development of joint movement restriction is prevented during the treatment period. But this method has many disadvantages. Neurovascular injury and pin tract infection may occur with this method. It is difficult to perform the method and also refractures may occur after the extraction of the fixator (Sarmiento, Waddell & Latta 2001, p.1566 ). It must not be the first choice when there is a risk of radial nerve injury, intolerance of the patient and the surgeon is not acknowledged and experienced with the system. It must be preferred in these situations: if the scar disuse is high due to the old operations, bone loss is much and also if there is an angulated deformity and infected pseudoarthrosis. Patients’ intolerance with this method and the failure of the other methods in cases of segment transport as shortness, led the surgeons to search for new methods. .


Ring et al. (2000, p. 867) treated the humeral nonunions by the use of waved plates and corticocancellous

autografts. Jupiter (1990, p. 701) also used medial plate

application combined with fibula grafts and was successful in this method. Up to date plate and screw fixation is the most preferred method for the treatment of humeral shaft nonunion. When compared with other methods, plate and screw application has a high rate of union. Rosen (1990, p. 725) treated 25 patients with nonunions of the humeral shaft by ORIF with the use of compression plate and bone graft for the atrophic nonunions. He achieved union in 24 of the 25 cases and declared that union is available in 95% of the nonunions of the humeral shaft if one follows the AO/ASIF principles of open reduction and stable internal fixation. Barquet et al. (1989, p. 95) reported 24 cases undergoing union in periods averaging 6 months after performing ORIF and corticocancellous grafting with the use of a broad DCP for 25 patients of having aseptic nonunion of the humeral shaft. As a complication there was one patient with a radial nerve lesion that underwent healing 12 weeks after the operation. Marti et al. (2002, p. 108) treated 51 patients with a protocol of careful radial nerve exploration, autogenous corticocancellous bone grafting and application of a 4.5 millimeter DCP. In their series, they achieved union in 50 cases and also they had a complete consolidation in all of the cases after one year. 23 patients were treated by conservative methods and 28 were treated by surgical methods before. The primary cause of the humeral shaft nonunion is the insufficient surgical technique. The success


of ORIF method with the use of DCP is best achieved by the fact that the rules of osteosynthesis technique is strictly obeyed and sufficient stabilization is reached. Dynamic Compression Plate - the secrets of stabilization Dynamic compression plate has special geometry of the hole. The holes have inclined plane towards the plate centre. A screw placed at the inclined plane, that is eccentrically, moves the underlying bone horizontally in relation to the plate until the screw head reaches the most inner border of the hole. Repeating the same process while inserting screw in the hole of the other half of plate gives the maximum compression at the fracture site. As strong compression at the fracture site is not required, only one screw is enough to give compression. Broad DCP should be preferred in surgical practices. Narrow DCP can be used especially in the narrow humeral shaft or if the patient is woman. To enhance the stability, the screws must be fixed in different directions instead of providing a parallelism between them (R端edi & Schweiberer 1991, p. 427). A minimum of four cortices on both sides of the nonunion site should be engaged by the screws and it may also be five or six too (Marti, Verheyen & Besselaar 2002, p.108 ). Healy et al. (1987, p. 206) made an analysis of successful and unsuccessful results for nonunions treated by plate-screw fixation. Unsuccessful platings averaged 2.1 above and below the nonunion but successful plating averaged 6.8 (distally 7.1). Ellipsoid holes of the DCP enables the screws to be engaged in different directions depending on the quality of the bone and also prevents new screws being directed into


the older holes formed by the previous screws. Also stabilization may be improved by purchasing the corticocancellous graft and on the other cortex of the bone. Some authors offer a two plate construct because one-plate construct does not provide sufficient stabilization. Rubel et al. (2002, p.1315) showed in an experimental study that a two plate construct provides a more stiff stability biomechanically and also decreases the micro motion at the nonunion site. However, a two-plate fixation has a limited practise because it requires an extensible dissection, increases the risk of infection and osteoporosis in humeral bone. Figure 3.3 : Special geometry of screw hole of DCP makes it possible to achieve axial compression without the use of a tension device and the screws can be angled in the long axis of bone up to 45 0. Narrow DCP with thickness 3.6 mm and 12 mm width. Purchasing cortical screws are of 4.5 mm in diameter.

Figure 3. 4: Biomechanics of dynamic compression (Swans and Gustilo 1993 ).

Occasional need for Shortening of the bone for apposition Beyond the healing of nonunion of the lower extremities, equalization of the bone length is also recommended. However, 4-5 cm difference in two upper extremities is accepted in the treatment of humeral nonunion of the shaft. No functional or cosmetic


morbidity occurs. Shortening of the bone as necessary to achieve apposition and compression of the two diaphseal bone is accepted. The amount of compression is important because humerus does not carry a load. The best amount of compression to achieve union of the humeral shaft pseudorthrosis is best provided by the method of ORIF with the use of DCP. Early Physiotherapic rehabilitation earns better results Physiotherapic rehabilitation can be started earlier after a stable fixation performed by a good surgical technique. Restriction of the shoulder and elbow movement associated with the conventional methods can be prevented with this method. As a well-done stabilization has a good effect on achieving union and also permits earlier rehabilitation. So patients obtaining functional gains feel better. Progress in osteopenia associated with immobility and decrease in muscle tone can be prevented especially in older patients. Complications are minimum and manageable Radial nerve injury after the treatment of humeral shaft pseudartrosis is reported as 3 % -29 % in the literature. This rate ranged from 2% to 4% after ORIF method. A great amount of nerve injuries were neuropraxia or axonotemesis, spontaneous recovery was achieved in 90% of them. Neurolysis of radial nerve performed by a broad exposure enables the surgeon to solve mechanical problems that cause the injury (Levent et al. 2005, p. 205). Infection rate decreases by atraumatic handling of the soft tissues even a broad exposure is used. A superficial infection can be treated by an antibiotherapy. Deep infection may also occur and can also be treated with meticulous care and antibiotics.


Fixation failure after plating of the humerus is uncommon. Fixation failures are most often due to technical errors made by the surgeon. It was observed that alcoholic patients with osteoporotic bone seem to be prone to fixation failures (Yusuf et al. 2004, p. 305). Flinkila et al. (1999, p.133) also reported

various complications, like nonunion

(22%), need for reoperations (21%) and shoulder dysfunction (37%) after operating on 126 patients who had a fractured shaft of the humerus. A good surgical technique is the key to success It is difficult and troublesome to treat the nonunions of the humeral shaft. As the number of surgical interventions increase, the success rate decreases. The surgical application should be performed after the evaluation of the patient, the nonunion and choice of the appropriate method. The primary cause of the unsuccessful outcome is the inability to perform a good and correct surgical technique. It is also true for humeral fractures. And also performing surgical procedures without a minimum number of operations decreases the success rate. ORIF by the use of a DCP provides many procedures to be performed from a single incision in one operation. In selected patients without osteoporosis and infection; this method is excellent provided that a good surgical technique is employed (Levent et al. 2005, p. 205).

4.

METHODOLOGY

STUDY DESIGN: This was a quasi experimental study.


PLACE OF THE STUDY: The study was carried out at Dhaka Medical College Hospital , Dhaka. PERIOD OF THE STUDY: From January 2005 to December 2006. STUDY POPULATION: Patients with clinical and radiological evidence of fracture distal third of humeral shaft who attended at the OPD or emergency dept. of DMCH. SAMPLE SIZE: Thirty-three patients with fracture of distal third humeral shaft were selected consecutively. Cases were diagnosed on clinical and radiological basis at the outpatient or emergency department of Dhaka Medical College & Hospital. 2 patients were lost during follow up, before the measurement of final outcome. They were excluded from the final evaluation of the functional outcome. The remaining 31 were available for follow up for a period of 6 to 8 months. SAMPLING: All Patients with fracture at the distal third of humerus were selected purposively (non randomized) on the basis of history, clinical examination & radiological findings strictly considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. INCLUSION CRITERIA: • Adult patients of age between 18 years to 60 years of either sex. • Closed Fracture located at the distal third of humeral diaphysis.


• Fractures included : -

Early failure of conservative treatment

-

Non union

-

Comminuted fracture

EXCLUSION CRITERIA: • Skeletally immature patients and the patients of age over 60 years. • Open fractures. • Pathological fractures • Patients physically unfit for anaesthesia. • Patients who were unable to cooperate the assessment of function because of head injuries or other causes (senility, neurotic etc.). VARIABLES: After enrollment of the patient, following variables were measured for outcome. a) Demographic Variables: i. Age ii. Sex iii. Occupation b) Clinical Variables: i. Causes of injury.


ii. Side of involvement. iii. Involvement of the dominant hand iv. Time interval between injury and operation v. Postoperative hospital stay vi. Time taken for union vii. Post operative complications viii. Need for further operation ix. Functional outcome x. Final outcome DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected with a pre-tested, structured questionnaire containing history, clinical & laboratory examination findings and the findings of the follow up. • History and clinical examinations : A complete history of the selected case was taken with particular emphasis to the time, cause, the mechanism of injury and the past treatment. This was followed by a thorough general and physical examination to exclude any associated injuries. Preoperative assessment following the modified Constant and Murley scoring system and a detailed local examination was then carried out with particular attention to:


1. Attitude of the limb, deformity and status of elbow and shoulder. 2. Estimation of neurovascular injury if any. 3. Any associated injury. • Laboratory findings : Radiological examinations: Antero-posterior and lateral views of the arm including shoulder and elbow joints were taken. In cases where there were suspicion regarding an associated injury, additional radiograph of the concerned part was advised. Later, while preparing the patient for operation, chest radiograph (P/A view) was taken. Laboratory investigations: The following tests were carried out routinely in all patients as a measure of anaesthetic fitness and also to rule out the co-existing diseases. Blood: • Total count and differential WBC count • Hemoglobin percentage and ESR • Routine microscopic examination of urine • Blood sugar estimation • Blood Urea and Serum Creatinine Others: • ECG (patient more than 35 years of age) and • X-ray chest in postero-anterior view.


• Preoperative preparation: 1. The selected Patient was counseled regarding the treatment procedure with emphasis on the available treatment options along with merits and demerits of each. He/she was informed about the possible postoperative sequels. Informed written consent was taken from each case included in the study. All issues regarding the patients welfare were approved by the local ethical committee. 2. Pre anaesthetic check-up was done. 3. The patient was asked to fast for 6 hours before operation. 4. Dynamic compression plate and screws of appropriate size were selected. 5. Antibiotics: All patients received prophylactic antibiotic, a third generation Cephalosporin (Ceftriaxone), one gram i.v. at the time of induction of anaesthesia. Post operatively parenteral Ceftriaxone was given 24 hourly for 3 days. After 3 days, oral Cephalosporin ( Ceftazidime 500 mg or Cefixime 200mg 12hourly ) was given for a further week or till wound healed or infection subsided. • Surgical Procedure: With all aseptic precaution open reduction and internal fixation was achieved with a standard narrow DCP by posterior approach. Details of the Surgical procedure is described in Appendix -I. • Postoperative Care:


Adequate sedation and analgesics were given postoperatively. Upper limb elevation was maintained for the first 48-72 hours. Antibiotics were prescribed as stated earlier. Active/passive finger exercises were advised to start immediately after the recovery from anaesthesia. Wound was inspected in 5th post operative day. Stitches were removed at 10th -12th POD. Patients were discharged from the hospital in 7 th-12th postoperative days. In cases of infection, patients were kept in the hospital for a little longer durations. • Follow up: Patients were usually followed up at monthly interval till the fracture union was achieved. Evaluation of the functional out come was achieved at 6 month’s visit. Six months was chosen as by that time healing of the fracture would normally have taken place, and functional improvement would have reached to a satisfactory level. This protocol had to be changed a little in some particular cases due to failure of attending the schedule or other causes. The patients were also advised to attend the OPD or contact personally if any problem regarding the treatment occurred. Pendulum shoulder exercise was started after 2 weeks. Long arm back slab was removed after 3 weeks and were allowed to move the elbow joint. In each follow up visit the following parameters were checked: 1.

History of pain, infection, any complication.


2.

On clinical examination

• look : Wound site, deformity, condition of the skin • feel

: Tenderness, fracture site mobility

• move: Both active and passive movements of shoulder and elbow joints. • Distal neurovascular status examinations. 3.

Radiological findings :

• To see the fracture alignment • To see the visible / bridging callus • To see the position of the plate and screw • To see the state of fracture union. The patients were advised to continue physiotherapy to increase muscle strength and range of motion of elbow and shoulder joints. Light work was allowed to be done after clinical and radiological evidence of fracture union. Strenuous work was allowed when there was radiological evidence of consolidation and the patients felt no pain. • Assessment of outcome of the treatment: • Functional assessment : The criteria for assessing the outcome after surgery have been set by different workers. Here the patients were evaluated preoperatively and at the most recent follow up (at six months visit usually) postoperatively with the modified Constant and Murley scoring system (Ring, Perey and Jupiter 1999, p. 185 ).


In this method, the maximum score is 100 points: 15 points for pain, 20 points for activities of daily living, 40 points for range of motion and 25 points for power. The patients graded pain as severe (0 point), moderate (5 points), mild (10 points) or none (15 points). Their ability to position the hand to perform various activities (maximum score, 10 points). The patients were asked to demonstrate the ability to bring the hand to the waist, to the xiphoid, to the neck, to the top of the head and above the head. Forward elevation and lateral elevation, as measured with a goniometer, were given a maximum of 10 points each. Internal rotation and external rotation were also given a maximum of 10 points each, on the basis of patients’ ability to perform the composite movements. Rotation is usually combined with forward elevation and abduction to perform activities of daily living. We measured the strength of the involved upper extremity by comparing it with that of the contra lateral upper extremity. The shoulder was placed in 90 degrees of abduction (or the maximum abduction possible at the involved limb) and compared the degree of isometric resistance to forced adduction with that of the contra lateral extremity. The strength of the involved limb was expressed as a percentage of that the uninvolved one and the point value for strength was determined by dividing the percentage by four.


Table 4.1

Modified Constant and Murley score of functional assessment (Ring, Perey and Jupiter, 1999, p. 185): Details of the individual parameters are shown in Appendix no. II. Item Pain

Score 15

None

15

Mild

10

Moderate

5

Severe

0

Activities of daily living

20

Full work

4

Full recreation/sports

4

Unaffected sleep

2

Hand position up to waist

2

up to xiphiod

4

up to top of head

8

above head

10

Range of motion

40

Abduction

10

Forward elevation

10

Internal rotation

10

External rotation

10

Shoulder power Total

25 100

Preoperative

Postoperative


Rating of results :

Final outcome :

Excellent

: 80 to 100 points

Satisfactory

Good

: 60 to 79 points

Unsatisfactory: Fair or Poor

Fair

: 40 to 59 points

Poor

: 0 to

: Excellent or Good

39 points

 Assessment of range of motion of shoulder and elbow : At the latest follow-up, range of motions in shoulder and elbow were assessed according to Rommens et al. (1995, P. 85). Shoulder or elbow function was graded as excellent when there was less than 10º loss of range in any direction, moderate when there was loss of between 10º to 30º and as poor with loss of range of more than 30º.


Table 4.2

Assessment of range of motion in shoulder and elbow joint (Rommens et al. 1995, p. 85)

Excellent Moderate Poor Restriction in shoulder motion <10° 10°-30° >30° Restriction in elbow motion <10° 10°-30° >30°

 Radiological assessment (Ring, Perey and Jupiter, 1999, p. 185) : Biplanar radiographs made at the time of follow-up evaluations were assessed to determine the presence of bridging callus (which was suggestive of healing), any loosening or failure of the fixation. OBSERVATION AND RESULTS: (STATISTICAL ANALYSIS): Data were processed and analysed using computer software SPSS (statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 11.5. The test statistics used to analyse the data were descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and one-tailed Z-test. The data presented on categorical scale were expressed as frequency and corresponding percentage, while the quantitative data were presented mean and standard deviation (SD) from the mean. Comparison between preoperative and postoperative data (according to Modified Constant and Murley scoring system) were done using Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Post operative final outcome was evaluated using Z-test.


For all analyses level of significance was set at 0.05 and p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. ETHICAL IMPLICATION : •

The study was Rationale.

Selected patients with clinically & radiologically diagnosed distal 3rd diaphyseal fracture of humerus were selected for the study.

A written informed consent was taken form the patient or from the legal guardian.

A structured questionnaire was then administered to obtain relevant information from the patients.

Operation was then performed and the post operative follow ups were recorded.

Confidentiality was duly maintained regarding all collected data form the study subjects.

5.

OBSERVATIONS & RESULTS

The findings derived from analysis of the collected data are furnished below: 5.1

Age distribution

Out of 33 subjects one-third (33.3%) were below 30 years of age and 30.3% between 30-40 years of age thus constituting more than half (63.3%) of the subjects within 40 years of age. Of the rest subjects, 18.2% were in the age range of 40-50 years and another 18.2% were 50 or above 50 years of age. The mean age was (36.7 ± 11.2) years and the lowest and highest ages were 20 and 60 years respectively (Table 5.1). Table 5.1

Age distribution of the patients (n = 33)


Age (yrs)*

No

%

< 30

11

9 (27%33.3 )

30 – 40

10

30.3

06

18.2

06

18.2

40 – 50

24 (73% )

≥ 50

* Mean age = (36.7 ± 11.2) yrs; range: (20 – 60) yrs.

5.2

Distribution of Sex

Figure 5.1 depicts that nearly three-quarter (73%) of the subjects were male and the rest were Female

Male

female (27%) giving a male-female ratio of 3:1 roughly.

Fig. 5.1 Distribution of subjects by sex (n = 33)

5.3

Occupation

Figure 5.2 demonstrates that 9 (27.3%) patients were service-holder followed by 21.2% housewives and another 21.2% students. Very few were farmers (6.1%) and labourers (9.1%).


Occupation

Others

3

Labourer

6.1

Farmer

6.1

Student

21.2

Housewife

21.2

Businessman

15.2

Service-holder

27.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage

Fig. 5.2 Distribution of the patients by occupation (n = 33) 5. 4

Causes of injury

Table 5.2 shows that over 45% of the injuries resulted while walking on the street (pedestrian), 12.1% due to fall from height, another 12.1% were caused while on sports activities and 9.1% by motorcycle driving. Motorcar driving, assault and accident at home each contained 6.1%. Only 1(3%) patient had machinery injury.


Table 5.2

Distribution of the patients by cause of injury (n = 33)

Cause of injury

Frequency

Percentage

Motor car driving

02

6.1

Motorcycle driving

03

9.1

Pedestrian

15

45.5

Fall from height

04

12.1

Assault

02

6.1

Machinery injuries

01

3.0

Accident at home

02

6.1

Sports activities

04

12.1

5. 5

Fracture profile

Table 5.3 demonstrates detailed fracture profile of the subjects. Data of fracture side shows that the right and left sided involvement were 48.5% and 51.5% respectively. About 40% of the selected subjects had non-united fracture, 33.3% early failure of conservative treatment and 27.3% comminuted fractures. Almost 52% did not have involvement of dominant hand.

Table 5.3

Fracture profile of the patients Fracture profile

Frequency

Percentage


Fracture side (n = 33) Right

16

48.5

17

51.5

Early Failure of conservative treatment

11

33.3

Non united

13

39.4

Comminuted

09

27.3

16

48.5

17

51.5

Left Fracture type (n = 33)

Involvement of dominant hand (n = 33) Yes No

5.6

Time interval between injury and operation

Table 5.4 compares the time interval between injury and operation among the three types of fracture cases. The time interval in non-united type of fracture was observed to be the highest (43.92 ± 14.91 weeks) compared to early failure of conservative treatment (1.82 ± 0.41 weeks) and comminuted fracture (2.33 ± 1.12 weeks). The groups were significantly heterogeneous in terms of time interval between injury and operation (p < 0.001).

Table 5.4

Comparison of time interval among the type of fractures (n = 33) Time interval (weeks)

Type of fracture

N

p-value


Mean

SD

Early failure of conservative treatment

11

1.82

0.41

Non-united

13

43.92

14.91

Comminuted

09

2.33

1.12

5.7

< 0.001

Post operative hospital stay

Table 5.5 shows the average hospital stay of the patients postoperatively. The main stay was 9.76 days with a SD of ± 3.03 days. The highest and lowest stays were 17 and 7 days respectively. Table 5.5

Post operative hospital stay (n = 33) Days

Post operative hospital stay

5.8

Time taken for union

Mean ± SD

Range

9.76 ± 3.03

7-17


Radiologically all the cases were found to be united and the mean time of presence of bridging callus was 17.06 ± 2.01 weeks and the minimum and maximum time needed for union were 12 and 24 weeks respectively.

Table 5.6

Presence of bridging callus by radiographic evaluation (n = 31) Weeks

Radiological evaluation

Presence of bridging callus

5. 9

Mean ± SD

Range

17.06 ± 2.01

12 – 24

Use of Bone graft

About 40% of the subjects (mainly the non-united cases) were given bone grafts during operation and the rest 60.6% were not given the same (Figure 5.3).

70 60.6 60 Fig. 5.3 Distribution of subjects by use of bone graft (n = 33)

Percentage

50 40

39.4

30 20 10 0 Given

Not given

Bone graft


5.10 Postoperative complications More than three-quarter (75.8%) of cases did not have any complication. Four patients (12.1%) developed infection and 2(6.1%) had iatrogenic radial nerve palsy. One (3%) exhibited loosening of the screw and one (3%) had to be transfused with blood because of profuse bleeding from the donor graft site postoperatively. Table 5.7

Distribution of patients by postoperative complications (n = 33)

Postoperative complication

Frequency

Percentage

Iatrogenic radial nerve palsy

02

6.1

Infection

04

12.1

Loosening of the screw

01

3.0

Post operative blood transfusion

01

3.0

No complication

25

75.8


5.11

Findings at 1st visit (4-10 weeks)

Table 5.8 shows the distribution of patientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; findings at first follow-up visit. Two (6.1%) patients had infection, 5(15.2%) complained of pain- 3(9.1%) had mild pain and 2(6.1%) had severe pain. All the 33 patients had intact fracture alignment. Visible callus was found in 57.6% of cases. Only 1 patient exhibited loosened screw. Of the 8 patients 3(37.5%) continued previous complications but none developed any new one. Table 5.8

Distribution of patients by findings at 4 weeks after operation Findings after 1st visit

Frequency

Percentage

Infection (n = 33)

2

6.1

28 3 2 33

84.8 9.1 6.1 100.0

19 14

57.6 42.4

32 1

97.0 3.0

Continued Absent

3 5

37.5 62.5

New complication (absent) (n = 33)

33

100.0

Pain (n = 33) No pain Mild Severe Intact fracture alignment (n = 33) Callus formation (n = 33) Visible Absent Position of plate/screw (n = 33) Intact Loosened (Screw) Previous complication (n = 8)


5.12

Findings at immediately before the last visit (16-24 weeks)

At immediately before the last evaluation, pain and infection was found to be absent as before (Table 5.9). Data show that all cases had intact alignment and also been united by the time. Table 5.9

Distribution of patients by findings at 16 weeks after operation

Findings after 16 weeks

Frequency

Percentage

Absence of infection

33

3.0

Pain (absent)

33

100.0

Fracture alignment (intact)

33

100.0

Callus formation (bridging)

33

100.0

Intact

32

97.0

Loosened (Screw)

1

3.0

Fracture united

33

100.0

Position of plate/screw


5.13

Range of motion immediately before the last evaluation visit (16-24 weeks)

Table 5.10 shows the range of motion immediately before the last evaluation visit. The mean values and the range of different types of active and passive motions of shoulder and elbow were presented in the table.

Table 5.10

Range of motion immediately before the last evaluation visit (n= 33) Mean ± SD

Range

Flexion (active)

130 ± 15

100 – 160

Flexion (passive)

136 ± 15

100 – 160

Extension (active)

38 ± 4

30 – 45

Extension (passive)

38 ± 4

30 – 45

Abduction (active)

129 ± 11

110 – 150

Abduction (passive)

134 ± 12

110 – 150

Flexion (active)

116 ± 10

100 – 130

Flexion (passive)

116 ± 10

100 – 130

Extension (active)

0±0

0–0

Extension (passive)

0±0

0–0

Range of motion Shoulder

Elbow

5.14

Patients followed up to

The mean follow up time of patients was 24.58 ± 3.56 weeks and the lowest and highest times of follow up were 15 and 32 weeks respectively. Table 5.11

Duration of follow up of the patient (n = 31)


Weeks Followed up to

5.15

Mean Âą SD

Range

24.58 Âą 3.56

15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 32

Evaluation of pain

Figure 5.4 demonstrates that 30.3% of the subjects had moderate degree of pain followed by 27.3% of severe pain, 18.2% mild pain and another 18.2% did not have any pain preoperatively. All the patients responded to the treatment having no pain postoperatively.

100 90

100

Percentage

80 70 60 50 40 30

30.3 18.2

27.3

18.2

20 0

10 0

None

Mild

0 Moderate

0 Severe

Gradation of pain Preoperative

Fig. 5.4

5.16

Postoperative

Comparison between preoperative and postoperative pain

Preoperative and postoperative total functional score

Table 5.12 evaluates the preoperative and postoperative total score (100) derived from combination of four parameters like pain (score 15), activities of daily living (score 20), power (score 25) and range of motion (score 40). The mean postoperative score


improved significantly to 75.87 ± 13.47 from the mean preoperative score of 8.16 ± 7.23 (p < 0.001). Table 5.12 Comparison between preoperative and postoperative functional outcome score (n = 31)

Total score

Mean ± SD

Preoperative

8.16 ± 7.23

p-value*

< 0.001 Postoperative

75.87 ± 13.47

*Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was done to analyse the data; Level of significance was 0.05.


5.17

Rating of postoperative functional outcome

Rating of postoperative functional outcome demonstrates that 11 (35.5%) patients had excellent outcome, 16 (51.6%) good, 4 (12.9%) fair and none had poor outcome (Figure 5.5).

60

51.6

50

Fig. Percentage

5.5

40

35.5

30 20

12.9

10

0

0 Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Rating of functional outcome

Rating of postoperative functional outcome

5.18

Final functional outcome

Figure 5.6 shows that the majority of the subjects (87%) had satisfactory outcome (excellent and good) and the rest 3% had fair outcome. Based on Z-approximation the outcome was considered significant (p < 0.001).


Unsatisfactoy 4 (13%)

Satisfactory 27 ( 87%)

Fig. 5.6

5.19

Distribution of patients by final outcome (n = 31)

Final assessment of range of motion in shoulder and elbow joint

Shoulder motion test reveals that 20 (64.51 %) of the 31 subjects had excellent range of motion (< 100 deficit) followed by 22.58 % (n= 7) moderate (10 0-300 deficit) and 12.90% poor outcome (> 300 deficit). More than half (67.74 %) of the subjects had moderate, 22.58% excellent and only 9.67% poor functional outcome of elbow motion. Table 5.13

Distribution of patients by restriction in motion (n = 31)

Outcome

Frequency

%

20

64.51

Shoulder motion Excellent

(< 100 deficit)


Moderate Poor

(100 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 300 deficit)

07

22.58

(> 300 deficit)

04

12.90

Elbow motion Excellent

(< 100 deficit)

21

67.74

Moderate

(100 -300 deficit)

07

22.58

(> 300 deficit)

03

9.67

Poor

6.

DISCUSSION

Although the majority of humeral shaft fractures are still treated conservatively with a satisfactory rate of success, there is a growing tendency toward operative treatment, as prolonged plaster cast immobilization of the upper arm against the thoracic wall is becoming increasingly unpopular among both patients and surgeons. This tendency has led to a progressive expansion of our indications for surgical treatment. (George, Dimitrios & Pericles et al. 2004, p.247 ).When operative treatment is indicated, plate fixation probably still remains the primary choice of most surgeons, producing satisfactory functional results and union rate ( Meekers & Broos 2002, P. 462 ). Epidemiological data of fractures varies between communities as a result of differences in socioeconomic, cultural, degree of urbanisation and other population characteristics (Cheng & Shen 1991, p.230). Some authors have reported on trends and patterns of humeral fractures. In a study conducted by Gallagher et al. (1984,


p.1340),

the incidence of humeral fractures was related to age group, with a

significantly higher incidence in those aged between 41 and 70 years compared with those in the younger age group (p<0.001). Out of our 33 study subjects , one-third (33.3%) were below 30 years of age and 30.3% between 30 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 40 years of age thus constituting more than half (63.3%) of the subjects within 40 years of age. The mean age was 36.7 Âą 11.2 years and the lowest and highest ages were 20 and 60 years respectively. We found that the fractures occurred more on the left humerus (52%) than on the right (48%) with less involvement of the dominant hand. The Malaysian (Chai, Aik & Sengupta 2000, p. 39 ) study also showed that the non-dominant arm was more often injured while a study conducted among the Scots (Tytherleigh, Walls & McQueen 1998, p. 249) indicated a higher incidence of fractures on the left humerus. This could be explained by the fact that about 90% of individuals world wide are right-handed and hence the right hand is more actively involved in physical mechanical action and use, as indeed a Malaysian study has indicated (Chai, Aik, Sengupta 2000, p. 40). The overall outcome of this is that the right arm has a greater bone mass than the more sedentary left arm and hence is less prone to fractures. Christensen (1976) observed a male predominance of 61.5%, while Wright, Miller and Vander (1993) showed males to made up 55.6% and Ring et al. (2000) 60.0%. In relation to gender, analysis our study showed that males had involvement of a nearly three-quarter (73%) of the subjects, giving a male-female ratio of roughly 3:1. Ten percent higher incidence than females, as had been shown also from the American


study (Gallagher et al. 1984, p. 1341). Males being the major working force of our society and are thus more consistently exposed to external environment which probably accounts for this predominance. Exploration of occupation in this series demonstrated that 9 (27.3%) patients were service-holder followed by 21.2% housewives and another 21.2% students. Very few were farmers (6.1%) and labourers (9.1%). Rommens, Verbruggen & Broo (I995, p. 86) conducted a study with the management of 39 patients of humeral fractures and found the causes of injuries as by traffic accidents (21), an accident at home (12), sport (3), an accident at work (2) and a fall ( 1 ) . Our study showed that over 45% of the of the injuries resulted while walking on the street (pedestrian) with a total of 60 % motor vehicle accident , 12.1% due to fall from height, another 12.1% were caused while on sports activities and 9.1% by motorcycle driving. Motorcar driving, assault and accident at home each was 6.1%. Only 1(3%) patient received machinery injury. Christensen (1976), Ring et al. (2000) observed motor vehicle accidents as the major reason for humeral shaft fractures occupying 50.0% and 40.0% respectively. Hornicek et al. (2001) and Swanson and Gustilo (1993) also stated the same types of fact. Rommens, Verbruggen & Broo (I995, p. 86 ) postoperatively observed that there was iatrogenic radial nerve palsy in one patient (2.6%), which fully recovered within three months. There were no infectious, vascular or other neurological problems. Three patients (7.7%) suffered additional comminution at the fracture site. There was slight nail migration with no adverse consequences in two older patients (5. 1%). Two


patients (5. 1%) needed a second operation for delayed healing. Two patients (5.1%) needed a second operation for delayed healing. More than three-quarter (75.8%) of the patients did not have any complications in our series. Four patients (12.1%) developed superficial infection postoperatively and these were cross infections. They were given adequate antibiotics & care of the wounds and infection subsided before the patient left the hospital. Two (6.1%) patients had iatrogenic radial nerve palsy. These were neuropraxia and fully recovered within 2 months. One (3%) exhibited loosening of the lowermost screw and this continued all along the study period but didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t hamper the alignment, loosening of the plate or union. One ( 3% ) patient had to be transfused 2 units of whole human blood because of profuse bleeding from the graft donor site which was controlled within 24 hours. We didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t observe any case of delayed healing & there was no necessity for re operation of any patient. Long duration of hospital stay after surgery costs the patient both mentally and economically. Average hospital stay of our respondents was 9.76 days with a SD of 3.03 postoperatively. The lowest stay was 7 days and the highest was 17 days. A little longer stay was required for the patients having postoperative infection. Radiologically all of our cases were found to be united and the mean time of presence of bridging callus was 17.06 Âą 2.01 weeks and the minimum and maximum time needed for unions were 12 and 24 weeks respectively.


In the study of Robinson et al. (1992) mean time of union was 18 weeks (8-96 weeks) corresponding our findings. In the study of Habernek and Orthner (1991), average union time was 2 months or 8 weeks. A successful outcome of the operative procedure depends upon the early and maximum regain of the motions of both shoulder and the elbow. Rommens, Verbruggen & Broo ( I995, p. 86 ) found the shoulder function excellent in 36 patients (92.3%), moderate in two (5. 1%) and poor in one (2.6%). Elbow function was excellent in 34 patients (87.2%). moderate in two (5. 1 %) and poor in three (7.7%). We have also achieved the similar results. Shoulder motion tests revealed that 20 (64.51 %) of the 31 subjects had excellent range of motion (< 10 0 deficit) followed by 22.58 % (n= 7) moderate (100 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 300 deficit) and 12.90% poor outcome ( > 30 0 deficit). More than half (67.74 %) of the subjects had moderate, 22.58 % excellent and only 9.67 % poor functional outcome of elbow motion. Ring et al. (1999, p.186) assed the functional outcome of the operative treatment of ununited fractures of the humeral diaphysis in 22 older patients. They observed the patients for a long period of time. The average score according to the modified rating system of Constant and Murley increased from 9 points

( range, 0-27 points )

preoperatively to 72 points ( range, 34-95 points ) postoperatively at the time most recent follow up ( p < 0.001 ). We performed our series with 31 cases & continued follow up for an average of 24.58 Âą 3.56 weeks. The lowest and highest time of follow up were 15 and 32 weeks respectively. About 30.3% of the subjects had moderate degree of pain followed by 27.3% severe pain, 18.2% mild pain and another 18.2% did not have any pain preoperatively. All the patients responded to the treatment


having no pain postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative total score (100) derived from combination of four parameters like pain (score 15), activities of daily living (score 20), power (score 25) and range of motion (score 40). The mean postoperative score improved significantly to 75.87 Âą 13.47 from the mean preoperative score of 8.16 Âą 7.23 ( p < 0.001) which was very consistent with the achievement of Ring et al. (1999). According to the criteria by Jupiter et al. (1990) the results were excellent in six (17.7%), good in 15 (44.1%), fair in nine (26.4%), and poor in four (11.8%) patients. The rate of excellent and good results were higher in closed fractures, in males, in patients at 20 to 40 years of age. The discrete ratings according to Constant and Murley in the study of Ring et al. (1999, p.188) were excellent for nine of the twenty two patients, good for eight, fair for three and poor for two. In our series, rating of postoperative functional outcome demonstrated that 35.5% (11 out of 31 respondents) had excellent outcome, over half (51.6%) good (n=16), 12.9% fair and none had poor outcome. Stern et al. (1984) described 90.4% satisfactory result treating 150 patients of humeral shaft fractures by plate fixation. Barry (1995) in his study showed 87% good results of humeral shaft fractures treated by intramedullary interlocking nails. Chapman et al. (2000) described 93% satisfactory result in plate group and 87% in intramedullary nail group in a randomized prospective comparative study. We found that majority of the subjects (87%) had satisfactory outcome (excellent and good) and the rest 13% had


fair outcome. Based on Z-approximation the outcome was considered significant (p < 0.001) which proved the procedure safe & effective.

7.

CONCLUSION

The limitation of our study include the lack of a large group of patients, despite that, the study has shown that DCP by posterior approach is an effective, dependable solution for the management of distal third diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. This is because it offers a short union time and lower incidence of serious complications such as gross infection, radial nerve palsy or implant failure etc. There appears to be a significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative functional outcome. Early and maximum regain of the motion of both shoulder and elbow joints allows the patients to return to the active life safely and promptly. Certain technical aspects, such as proper debridement of avascular bone and fibrous, inflammatory & synovial tissues from the site of nonunion , drilling of sclerotic areas to encourage revascularization, using of the circumferential bone clamps as less as possible , extreme care to avoid devitalizing the bone and soft tissues, special attention to protect the ulnar & radial nerve, selection of the DCP of appropriate length and contour, elevation of muscle only in a narrow area for application of the plate , keeping the periosteum intact in place and achievement of adequate compression & fixation stability, must be given sufficient attention in our effort to reduce delayed union and nonunion or implant failure rates and to obtain the optimum functional results.


8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barquet, A, Fernandez, A, Luvizio, J & Masliah, R 1989, ‘A combined therapeutic protocol for aseptic nonunion of the humeral shaft : a report of 25 cases’, J Trauma, vol.29, pp.95-98. Barry, LR 1995, ‘Intramedullary nailing of the humerus’, In Bruce D Browner (ed.), The Science and Practice of Interamedullary Nailing, 2nd Edition, Williams and Wilkins, USA, pp. 241-263. Bell, MJ, Beauchamp, CG, Kellam, JK & McMurtry, RY 1985, ‘The results of plating humeral shaft fractures in patients with multiple injuries: the Sunnybrook experience’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Br], vol. 67, no. B, pp. 293-6. Böhler, L 1965, ‘Conservative treatment of fresh closed fractures of the humerus’, J Trauma, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 464-468. Brumback, RJ, Bosse, MJ, Poka, A & Burgess, AR 1986, ‘Intramedullary stabilization of humeral shaft fractures in patients with multiple trauma’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Am], vol. 68, no. A, pp. 960-70. Caldwell, JA 1940, ‘Treatment of Fractures of the Shaft of the Humerus by Hanging Cas’, Surg. Gynec. and Obstet., vol. 70, pp. 421-425. Carroll, SE 1963, ‘A study of the nutrient foramina of the humeral diaphysis’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 45, no.B, pp. 176.


Chacha, PB 1974, Compression Plating without Bone Grafts for Delayed and Nonunion of Humeral Shaft Fractures, Injury, vol.5, pp. 283-290. Chai, KK, Aik, S, & Sengupta, S 2000, ‘Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children—an epidemiological study of 13 consecutive cases’, Med J Malaysia, vol. 550, no. Suppl C, pp. 39–43. Chapman, JR, Henley, MB, Agel, J, Benca, PJ 2000, ‘Randomized prospective study of humeral shaft fracture fixation: intramedullary nails versus plates’,

J.

Orthop Trauma, vol. Mar-Apr 14 , no. 3, pp. 162-6. Cheng, JCY & Shen, WY 1991, ‘ Limb fracture pattern in 2,500 children under age 12’, J Hong Kong Med Assoc, vol. 43, pp. 230–234. Christensen, NO 1976,

‘Kuntscher Intramedullary Reaming and Nail Fixation for

Nonunion of the Humerus', Clin. Orthop, vol. 116, pp. 222-226. Christopher JK 2000,‘Fractures and Dislocations’, in Russel RCG , Williams NS and Bulstrode CJK (eds), Bailey & Love’s Short practice of Surger, 23rd edn, Arnold Publishers, London, pp.320-336. Crenshaw, AH, 1998, ‘Fractures of Shoulder Girdle, Arm and Forearm’, in ST Canale (ed.), Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics, Vol. 3, 9th edn, Mosby, USA, pp. 2281-2361. Eggers, G W N 1948, ‘Internal contact splint’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 30, no. A, pp. 40.


Emmet, JE & Breck, LW 1958, ‘A Review and Analysis of 11,000 Fractures Seen in a Private Practice of Orthopaedic Surgery, 1936-1956, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 40, no.A, pp. 1169-1175.Epps, CH, Jr. 1988, ‘Nonunion of the humerus’, in FH Bassett (ed.), Instructional course lecture, volume XXXVII, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, pp. 161-166. Esterhai, JL Jr., Brighton, CT, Heppenstall RB & Thrower A 1986, ‘Nonunion of the humerus. Clinical, roentgen graphic, scintigraphic, and response characteristics to treatment with constant direct current stimulation of osteogenesis’ , Clin Orthop, vol. 211, pp. 228-34. Farragos, AF, Schemitsch, EH & Mckee, MD 1999, ‘Compliocations of intramedullary nailing for fractures of humeral shaft: a review’, J Orthop Trauma, vol.13, pp.258-267. Flinkila, T, Hyvonen, P, Lakovaara, M, Linden, T, Ristiniemi, J & Hamalainen, M 1999, ‘Intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures’, Acta Orthop Scand, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 133-6. Foster, RJ, Dixon, GL Jr, Bach, AW, Apple yard, RW & Green, TM 1985, ‘Internal fixation of fractures and non-unions of the humeral shaft: indications and results in a multi-center study’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Am], vol.67, no.A, pp.857-64. Foulk, DA, Szabo, RM 1995, ‘Diaphyseal humerus fractures: natural history and occurrence of nonunion’, Orthopedics , vol. 18, pp. 333-5.


Gallagher, SS, Finison, K, Guyer,

B, Good enough, S 1984, ‘The incidence of

injuries among 87,000 Massachusetts children and adolescents’, Am J Public Health, vol. 74, pp. 1340–1346. George, P, Dimitrios, K, Pericles, P, John, C, John, Grant, RE, Cotler, JM, Epps, CH Jr & Kim, DD 1994, ‘Complication of treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft’, in Epps CH Jr. (ed.), Complications in orthopaedics surgery, Vol. 1, 3rd edn, Philadelphia, Lippincott, pp. 257-84. Grant, RE, Cotler, JM, Epps, CH Jr, Kim, DD 1994, ‘ Complications of treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft’, in Epps CH Jr, (ed), Complications in orthopaedics surgery, Vol. 1, 3rd ed, Philadelphia, Lippincott, pp. 257-84. Gregory, PR & Sanders, RW 1997, ‘Compression plating versus intramedullary fixation of humeral shaft fractures’, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, vol. 5, pp. 215-23. Habernek, H, Orthner, E 1991, ‘A locking nail for fractures of the humerus’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Br], vol. 73, no. B, pp. 651-3. Hakan, Z, Mustafa, U, Yetkin, S & Tevfik A 2002, ‘Long-term functional results of adult intra-articular distal humeral fractures Healy, WL, White, GM & Mick, CA 1987, ‘Nonunion of the humeral shaft’, Clin. Orthop., vol.211, pp. 228-34. Healy, WL, White, GM, Mick, CA, Brooker, AF Jr & Weiland, AJ 1987, ‘Nonunion of the humeral shaft’, Clin Orthop, vol. 219, pp. 206-13.


Henry AK 1966, Extensile exposure, 2nd ed. Edinburgh, E & S Livingstone. Holm, CL 1970, ‘Management of Humeral Shaft fractures’, Clin. Orthop., vol. 71, pp. 132-139. Holstein, A & Lewis, GB 1963, ‘Fractures of the humerus with radial-nerve paralyses, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Am], vol. 45, no. A, pp. 1382-8. Hornicek, FJ, Zych, GA, Huston, JJ & Malinin, TI 2001, ‘Salvage of humeral nonunions with onlay bone plate allograft augmentation’, Clin. Orthop., vol. 386, pp. 203-209. Hunter, SG 1982, ‘The Closed Treatment of Fractures of the Humeral Shaft’, Clin. Orthop., vol. 164, pp. 192-198. ‘Injuries of the Shoulder, Upper arm & Elbow’ 2001, in Louis, S, David, SW & Selvadurai, N (eds), ‘Apley’s System of Orthopaedics and fractures’, 8th edition, Arnold, London, pp.594. Johansson, Olof 1961, ‘Complications and Failures of Surgery in Various Fractures of the Humerus’, Acta Chir. Scandinavica, vol. 120, pp. 469-478. Jupiter, JB 1990, ‘Complex non-union of the humeral diaphysis. Treatment with a medial approach, an anterior plate, and a vascularized fibular graft’, J Bone Joint Surg [Am], vol. 72. Kassab, SS, Mast, JW & Mayo, KA 1998, ‘Patients treated for nonunions with plate and screw fixation and adjunctive locking nuts’, Clin Orthop , vol. 347, pp. 86-92.


Key, J 1942, ‘Positive pressure in arthrodesis for tuberculosis of the knee joint’, South. Med. J., vol. 25, pp. 909. King, A & Jhonston, GH 1998, ‘A modification of Henry’s anterior approach to the humerus’,J shoulder Elbow Surg ,vol.7, pp.210. Klenerman, L 1966, ‘Fractures of the shaft of the humerus’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 48, no. B, pp. 105-111. Klenerman, L 1992, ‘Injuries of the arm’, in F N Wilson (ed.), Watson Jones Fractures and Joint Injuries, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp. 572-582. Kocaoglu, M, Tomak, Y, Eralp, L & Bilen, FE 2001, ‘The treatment of pseudoarthrosis of the humeral shaft by the Ilizarov method’, Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc , vol. 35, pp. 1- 9. Laing, PG 1956, ‘The arterial supply of the adult humerus’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , vol. 38, no. A, pp. 1105-1116. Levent CELEBI, Ozgur DOGAN, Hasan Hilmi MURATLI, Mehmet Frat YAGMURLU, Halil Yalcn YUKSEL & Ali BICIMOGLU 2005, ‘Treatment of humeral pseudarthroses by open reduction and internal fixation’, Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 205-210. Lin, J, Hou, SM & Hang ,YS 2004, ‘Treatment of humeral shaft delayed unions and nonunions with humeral locked nails’, J Trauma , vol. 48, pp. 695-703.


Loomer, R & Kokan, P 1976, ‘Non-union in fractures of the humeral shaft’, Injury, vol. 7, pp. 274-8. Marti, RK, Verheyen, CC &

Besselaar, PP 2002,

‘Humeral shaft nonunion:

evaluation of uniform surgical repair in fifty-one patients’, J Orthop Trauma , vol. 16, pp. 108-15. Meekers, FS & Broos, PL 2002, ‘Operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. The Leuven experience’, Acta Orthop Belg , VOL. 68, PP. 462-70. Meeks, R, Vivoda, E and Creighton, A 1980, ‘Comparison of Mortality in Multiply Injured Patients according to the Type of Fracture Pattern, Annual Meeting of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association, Calgary, Alberta. Micheal, DM, Tracy, LW, Lucy, W, Emil, HS & Robin, RR 2000, ‘Functional outcome following surgical treatment of intra articular distal humeral fractures through a posterior approach’, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 82 , pp. 1701. Modabber, MR & Jupiter, JB 1998, ‘Operative management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. Plate versus nail’, Clin Orthop, vol. 347, pp. 93-104. Müller, ME & Thomas, RJ 1979, ‘Treatment of nonunion in the fractures of long bones’, Clin Orthop., vol. 38, pp. 141-153. Müller, ME 1965, ‘Treatment of non-unions by compression’, Clin. Orthop., vol. 43, pp. 83-92.


Müller, ME, Allgöwer, M, Schneider, R, Willenegger, H 1991, Manual of internal fixation: techniques recommended by the AO-ASIF group, 3rd edn, Berlin, SpringerVerlag, pp. 427-52. Nummi, Pekka 1971, ‘Intramedullary Fixation with Compression for the Treatment of Fractures in the Shaft of the Humerus’, Acta Chir. Scandinavica, vol. 137, pp. 71-73. Ozturk, K, Aksoy, B, Olcay, E, Yildirim, OS, Esenyel, CZ & Kara AN 1999, ‘The treatment of the humeral shaft fractures with AO plate’, Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc, vol. 33, pp. 121-5. Pereles, TR, Koval, KJ, Gallagher, M & Rosen, H 1997, ‘Open reduction and internal fixation of the distal humerus: functional outcome in elderly’, J Trauma, vol. Oct 43, no. 4, pp. 578-84. Pugh, DM & McKee, MD

2003, ‘Advances in the management of humeral

nonunion’, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, vol. 11, pp. 48-59. Rakesh, G, Anil, R and Vijay, S 2000, ‘Limited contact dynamic compression in diaphyseal fractures of the humerus Good outcome in 51 patients’, Acta Orthop Scand , vol. 71, no.5, pp. 471–474. Reynders, P 2003, ‘New Approaches to Humeral Shaft Fractures’, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [BR], Vol. 86, no. B, Issue. SUPP III, pp. 214.


Ring, D, Jupiter, JB, Quintero, J, Sanders, RA & Marti, RK 2000, ‘Atrophic ununited diaphyseal fractures of the humerus with a bony defect’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 82, no. B, pp. 867-871. Ring, D, Jupiter, JB, Quintero, J, Sanders, RA, Marti, RK 2000, ‘Atrophic ununited diaphyseal fractures of the humerus with a bony defect: treatment by wave-plate osteosynthesis’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Br] , vol. 82, pp. 867-71. Ring, D, Pere,y BH & Jupiter, JB 1999, ‘The functional outcome of operative treatment of ununited fractures of the humeral diaphysis in older patients’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 81, no. A, pp. 177-190. Robinson, CM, Bell, KM, Court-Brown, CM, McQueen, MM 1992, ‘Locked nailing of humeral shaft fractures: experience in Edinburgh over a two- year’s period’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Br], vol.74, no. B, pp. 558-62. Rommens, Pm, Verbruggen, J & Broos, Pl, ‘Retrograde Locked Nailing Of Humeral Shaft Fractures A Review Of 39 Patients’, J Bone Joint Surg [Br], I995, vol. 77, no. B, pp. 84-9. Rosen, H 1990, ‘The treatment of nonunions and pseudarthroses of the humeral shaft’, Orthop. Clin. North America, vol. 21, pp. 725-742. Rubel, IF, Kloen, P, Campbell, D, Schwartz, M, Liew, A, Myers, E 2002, ‘Open reduction and internal fixation of humeral nonunions: a biomechanical and clinical study’, J Bone Joint Surg [Am] , vol. 84, no. A, pp. 1315-22.


Rüedi, T & Schweiberer, L

1991, ‘Scapula, clavicle, humerus’, in Müller, ME,

Allgöwer, M, Schneider, R & Willenegger, H (eds), Manual of internal fixation: techniques recommended by the AO-ASIF group, 3rd ed, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 427-52. Ruedi, T, Mushfegh, A, Pfeiffer, KM & Allgower, M 1974, ‘Fresh Fractures of the Shaft of the Humerus- Conservative or Operative Treatment’, Reconstr. Surg. And Traumat , vol. 14, pp. 65-74. Sarmiento, A, Zagorski, JB, Zych, GA, Latta, LL & Capps, CA 2000, ‘Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis’ , Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Am], vol. 82, pp. 478-86. Sarmiento, A, Kinman, PB, Galvin, EG, Schmitt, TA &

Phillips, JG 1977,

‘Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Am], vol. 59, no. A, pp. 596-601. Sarmiento, A, Waddell, JP & Latta, LL 2001, ‘Diaphyseal humeral fractures: treatment options’, J Bone Joint Surg [Am] , vol. 83, pp. 1566-79. Siebert, CH, Heinz, BC, Holfer, HR & Hansis, M 1996, ‘Plate osteosynthesis management of humerus shaft fractures’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Br] , vol. 67, no. B, pp. 715-8. Stern, PJ, Mattingly, DA, Pomeroy, DL, Zenni, EJ Jr & Krieg, JR 1984, ‘Intramedullary fixation of humeral shaft fractures’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery [Am], vol. 66, no. A, pp. 639-46.


Stewart, MJ & Hundley, JM 1955, ‘Fractures of the Humerus. A comparative Study in Methods of Treatment’, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 37, no. A, pp. 681692. Swanson, TV & Gustilo, RB 1993, ‘Fractures of the humeral shaft’, in RB Gustilo, RF Kyle & DC Templeman (eds), Fractures and Dislocations, Vol. 1, St. Louis, Mosby-Year book, pp. 365-385. ‘The Humerus’ 2003, in H Stanley & B Piet (eds), Surgical exposures in Orthopaedics, 3rd eds, Jaypee Brothers, India, pp.68-103. Trotter, DH & Dobozi, W 1986, ‘Nonunion of the humerus: rigid fixation, bone grafting, and adjunctive bone cement, Clin Orthop, vol. 204, pp. 162-8. Tytherleigh, SG, Walls,N & McQueen, MM 1998, ‘The therapeutic protocol for aseptic nonunion of the humeral treated by open reduction and plate osteosynthesis’, Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc’ , vol. 36, pp. 328-335. Ward, EF, Savoie, FH & Hughes JL 1992, ‘Fractures of the diaphyseal humerus’, in BD Browner, JB Jupiter, AM Levine & PG Trafton (eds), Skeletal trauma, Volume 2, W B Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp. 1177-1200. Wright, TW 1997, ‘Treatment of humeral diaphyseal nonunions in the patients with severely compromised bone’, J South Orthop Assoc., vol. 6, no.1, pp. 1-7.


Wright, TW, Miller, GJ, Vander, Griend, RA, Wheeler, D &

Dell PC 1993,

‘Reconstruction of the humerus with an intramedullary fibular graft. A clinical and biomechanical study’, J Bone Joint Surg [Br], vol. 75, pp. 804-7. Yusuf, Ö, Mahmut, K, Mustafa C, & Ali, Volkan Ö,Z 2004, ‘Treatment results of pseudarthrosis of the humeral shaft by open reduction and internal fixation with dynamic compression plating’, Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 305-312. Zuckerman, JD & Koval, KJ 1996, ‘Fractures of the shaft of the humerus’, in CA Rockwood, DP Green, RW Bucholz & JD Heckman (eds), Rockwood and Green’s Fracture in adults, Vol. 1, 4th edn, Lippincott-raven Publishers, Philadelphia, pp. 1025-1053.


9.

APPENDICES Appendix-I

Operative procedure: (The Humerus 2003, p.79) Position of the patient : The operation was performed with the patient under general anaesthesia / regional block and in a lateral position on the operating table with the affected side uppermost. A pillow used to be placed under the arm to be operated on (Fig. 9.1 ).


Fig. 9.1

Lateral position of the patient for posterior approach.

Land marks: The acromion is a rectangular bony prominence that forms the summit of the shoulder. The olecranon fossa is palpated at the distal end of the posterior aspect of the arm. the fossa is filled by the olecranon when the elbow is extended. Incision: A longitudinal incision in the midline of the posterior aspect of the arm, from 8 cm below the acromion to the olecranon fossa (Fig. 9.2).


Fig. 9.2 A longitudinal incision in the midline of the posterior aspect of the arm Internervous plane: There is no true internervous plane ; dissection involves separating the heads of the triceps brachii muscle , all of which are supplied by the radial nerve. Superficial surgical dissection : The deep fascia of the arm in line with the skin incision (Fig. 9.3) was incised. The gap between the lateral and long heads was identified above the point at which the two heads fuse to form a common tendon (Fig.9.4) proximally; the interval was used to develop between the heads by blunt dissection, retracting the lateral head laterally and the long head head medially. Distally the musle would need to be divided by sharp dissection along the line of skin incision. Many blood vessels needed to be coagulated individually.


Fig.9.3 To incise the fascia of the arm in the line with the skin incision .

Fig.9.4 To identify the gap between the lateral and long heads of the triceps muscles

Deep surgical dissection: The medial head of the triceps muscle lies bellow the other two heads; the radial nerve runs just proximal to it in the spiral groove. The medial head was incised in the midline, continuing the dissection down to the humerus. During the dissection care was taken to avoid devitalizing the bone and soft tissues. Special attention was given to protect the ulnar & radial nerve. Muscle was elevated only in a narrow area for application of the plate and the periosteum was left in place (Fig.9.5).

Fig.9.5 : To incise the medial head in the midline, continuing the dissection down to the humerus. During the dissection care is to be taken to avoid devitalizing the bone and soft tissues.Special attention should be given to protect the ulnar & radial nerve. Muscle was elevated only in a narrow area for application of the plate and the periosteum was left in place.


Avascular bone and fibrous, inflammatory and synovial tissues were debrided from the site of nonunion until bleeding bone was seen. Drilling of sclerotic areas were done to encourage revascularization. We used the circumferential bone clamps as less as possible. The old implant material was devisaged if any (one case only). Interfragmentary screws were given to align larger comminuted fragment where necessary. Then a narrow DCP of appropriate measurement was placed on the posterior surface of the humerus and fixation done engaging at least six cortices both above and below the fracture site. The wound was closed in usual way after proper haemostasis and keeping a drain in situ. Dressings were given and the limb was immobilized in a long arm back slab.

Appendix II Informed Written Consent Form


I

am …..………………………………………………………………, aged

about……………years , duly informed about the objectives of the study titled , “ Distal 3rd

diaphyseal fracture of humerus fixed with DCP

by posterior approach - an evaluation of the outcome ”. Have been given the guarantee to the secrecy of data that would be collected for the study. Have given the permission to publish Photographs for publications in any form, if needed, for public interest. Spontaneously agree to be included in the aforesaid type of study. -------------------------------------------Signature / Fingerprint Of the Patient Name: Address: Date: Distal 3rd Diaphyseal Fracture of Humerus fixed with DCP by Posterior Approach - an evaluation of the outcome. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

Patient’s and Hospital Information 

Case no. / Patient’s ID No: …………………………………………….………………….

 Ward No: ………………..………..

Bed No: …………………….

 Address:…………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 

Phone :…………………………………………………………………………………….


1.

Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………….

2.

Age:

4.

Occupation:

………….. years

3. Sex:

1. Male

2. Female

1. Serviceman

2. Businessman

3. Housewife

5. Farmer

6. Laborer

7. Others ……………………………………

5.

Date of admission: ……..…………..……….

6.

Date of operation: ………………………….

7.

Date of discharge: ………………………….

8.

Post operative Hospital stay :……………… days.

4.Student

Injury Details 9.

Date of injury : ……………………

10.

Cause of injury : 1. Motor vehicle accident

a. Motor car driver b. Motorcycle driver c. Pedestrian

2. Fall from height

3. Assault

4. Machinery injury

5. Accident at home

6. Sport

7. Others ………………………………

11.

Type of injury :

Closed

12.

History of Previous Treatment: 1. Conservative 2. Operative 3. Indigenous 4. None

Description of the fracture 13. Fracture side : 1. Right

2. Left

14. Fracture type: 1. Early failure of conservative treatment 2. Non united 3. Comminuted 15. Involvement of the dominant hand : 1. Yes

2. No

16. Associated Radial nerve palsy

2. Absent

: 1. Present

17. Other associated injuries : 1. Other system injury

2. Fracture of other long bones

3. None

Management of the fracture in the hospital


18. Anaesthesia

:

1. General

2. Regional

19. Surgical approach :

Posterior Approach

20. Bone graft

1. Given

:

2. Not given

21. Time interval between injury and operation:……….. weeks.

Postoperative complications ♦

22. Iatrogenic Radial nerve palsy

: 1. Observed

23. Infection

: 1. Present

24. Status of union

: 1. Mal union

2. Delayed union

25. Loosening of the screw

: 1. Intact

2. Loosened

26. Implant failure

: 1. Failed

2. Not failed

2. Not observed 2. Not present

27. Post operative blood transfusion : 1. Required

2. Not required

28. Restricted elbow movement

: 1. Restricted

2. Not Restricted

29. No complication

:

30. Need for further operation

: 1. Yes

2. No

3. Non union 4. None


FOLLOW-UP FINDINGS

First visit

( After………………………Weeks ) 1. Infection : 1 . Yes 2. Pain

2. No

: 1. No pain 2. Mild 3. Moderate 4. Severe

a. Fracture site b. Shoulder/ Elbow c. Graft donor site

3. X-Ray findings:

Second visit

a.

Fracture alignment

: 1. Intact

b.

Presence of callus

: 1. visible

c.

Position of screw

: 1. Intact

2. Loosened

d.

Position of plate

: 1. Intact

2. Loosened

4. Status of previous complications

: 1. Present

2. Absent

5. Status of new complications

: 1. Present

2. Absent

2. Not intact 2. Bridging

(After………………………Weeks) 1. Infection : 1 . Yes 2. Pain

2. No

: 1. No pain 2. Mild 3. Moderate 4. Severe

a. Fracture site b. Shoulder/ Elbow c. Graft donor site

3. X-Ray findings: a.

Fracture alignment

: 1. Intact

b.

Presence of callus

: 1. visible

c.

Position of screws

: 1. Intact

d.

Position of plate

: 1. Intact

e.

State of union

: 1. Uniting

2. Not intact 2. Bridging 2. Loosened 2. Loosened 2. United

3. Not United 4. Delayedly united

4. Status of previous complications

: 1. Present

2. Absent

5. Muscle wasting

: 1. yes

2. No

6. Range of motion: Shoulder Active Flexion

0-180

Extension

0- 45

Abduction

0-180

Passive


Elbow Active Flexion

0-140

Extension 0

7.

Any deformity

: 1. yes

2. No

Passive


Subsequent Visit :

( After………………………Weeks )

1. Infection : 1 . Yes 2. Pain

2. No

: 1. No pain 2. Mild 3. Moderate 4. Severe

a. Fracture site b. Shoulder/ Elbow c. Graft donor site

3. X-Ray findings: a.

Fracture alignment

: 1. Intact

b.

Presence of callus

: 1. visible

c.

Position of screws

: 1. Intact

d.

Position of plate

: 1. Intact

e.

State of union

: 1. Uniting

2. Not intact 2. Bridging 2. Loosened 2. Loosened 2. United

3. Not United 4. Delayedly united

4. Status of previous complications

: 1. Present

2. Absent

5. Muscle wasting

: 1. yes

2. No

6. Range of motion: Shoulder Active Flexion

0-180

Extension

0- 45

Abduction

0-180

Passive

Elbow Active Flexion

0-140

Extension 0

7.

Any deformity

: 1. yes

2. No

Passive


Assessment of outcome of treatment: 

(After………………………Weeks )

Functional assessment : : Modified Constant and Murley scoring system ( Ring, Perey and Jupiter 1999, p.185 ). ♦

Pre operative and Post operative final assessment :

Table 9.1 : Scoring for individual parameters :

Preoperative

Postoperative

15 20 40 25 100

Pain Activities of daily living Range of motion Power Total

Table 9. 2 : Scoring of pain :

Preoperative None

15

Mild

10

Moderate

5

0 Severe Table 9. 3 : Scoring for activities of daily living.

postoperative


Preoperative Activities of daily living

Postoperative

20

Full work

4

Full recreation/sports

4

Unaffected sleep

2

Hand position up to waist

2

up to xiphoid

4

up to top of head

8 10

above head Range of motion (total) Abduction

0-180

Forward elevation 0-180 Internal rotation

0- 80

External rotation

50- 90

40 10 10 10 10

Table 9.4 : Scoring for range of motion :

Preoperative

Postoperative


Table 9.5 : Points for forward and lateral elevation.

Preoperative Elevation

Points

Points

0

0º - 30º

2

31º- 60º

4

61º- 90º

6

91º-120º

8

121º-150º 151º-180º

Postoperative

10

Table 9.6 : External Rotation Scoring .

Preoperative Position Hand behind head with elbow held forward Hand behind head with elbow held back Hand on top of head with elbow held

Points

2 2 2

forward Hand on top of head with elbow held back Full elevation from on top of head Total

2 2

10

Postoperative Points


Table 9.7 : Internal rotation scoring .

Preoperati ve Position

Postoperativ e

Points

Points

0

Dorsum of hand to lateral thigh

2

Dorsum of hand to buttock Dorsum of hand to lumbosacral junction Dorsum of hand to waist (3rd Lumbar Vertebra)

4 6 8

Dorsum of hand to 12th dorsal vertebra Dorsum of hand to interscapular region ( D- 7 )

10

Table 9.8 : Scoring for shoulder Power. ( At 90 degree abduction or the maximum abduction possible in the affected limb )

Unaffected limb

Affected limb

Side Degree

of

resistance adduction At Preoperative

Postoperativ e

isometric The strength as a Point to

forced percentage of the unaffected side

value

for

strength by dividing the percentage by 4


Table 9.9 : Rating and outcome of results :

80-100 p

Excellent

Satisfactor

Sco

y 60- 79 p

Good

40- 59 p

Fair

re

Ratin g

Outcome

Preoperative

Unsatisfacto Postoperative ry

0- 39 p

Poor

Assessment of range of motion in shoulder and elbow joint ( Rommens et al. 1995, p. 85 )

Table : 9.10

Restriction

in

Excellent

Moderate

Poor

<10°

10°-30°

>30°

<10°

0°-30°

>30°

Deficit

Outcome

shoulder

motion Restriction in elbow motion

Radiographic evaluation: ( Ring, Perey and Jupiter 1999 , p. 185 ).

Presence of Bridging callus

Time taken for (weeks)

Outcome


Appendix- III

CASE ILLUSTRATION NO. 1 Case ID no. 001 Case profile : 1. Hospital Reg. No.

:

2365/21

2. Name

:

Md. Asaduzzaman ( Polash )

3. Age

:

24 years

4. Sex

:

Male

5. Occupation

:

Student

6. Date of injury

:

14.02.2004

7. Date of admission

:

17.06.2005

8. Date of operation

:

21.06.2005

9. Date of discharge

:

28.06.2005

10. Cause of injury

:

Fall from height

11. Side affected

:

Left

12. Involvement of dominant hand

:

No

13. Case type

:

Non united

14. Previous treatment

:

Operative (Implant failure)

15. Associated injury

:

Nil

16. Postoperative Hospital stay :

7 days

17. Time interval between injury and operation :

66 weeks


Management: On admission: Patient presented with the complaints of : • Deformity of the left arm • Abnormal movement at the fracture site • Difficulty in movement of the left arm There was a history of fall from wall on to the ground followed by a closed fracture of distal third of the shaft of Lt. humerus. He was admitted in a hospital and was treated by operative procedure (ORIF with plate and screw). But the fracture alignment was not good and the implant became loosened gradually. The fracture site became abnormally mobile. On examination there was no tenderness at the fracture site but abnormal movement. There was no neurological deficit. Pre-operative preparation: • Routine blood and urine investigation were done and found all the parameters within the normal limits. • Chest X-ray P/A view and X-ray of the Lt. arm including shoulder and elbow in A/P and lateral views were done. X-ray of the left arm showed fracture of the distal third of shaft of humerus with an loosened old plate and screws. • Adequate size of plate with screws were selected. • Patient was then prepared for operation. • He was given third generation cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) 1 gram i/v at the time of induction of anaesthesia.


Operation: • Position of the patient - Lateral with a pillow under the arm. • Anesthesia

- G/A

• Approach of the fracture site - Posterior midline approach. • Operative technique

- As described in the surgical procedure.

Old implant was removed & after maintaining proper protocol a new 10 holes narrow Dynamic Compression Plate was implanted. Securing proper haemostasis the wound was closed

in layers with a drain in

situ. A long arm back slab was given. • Bone graft was obtained from the iliac bone and was applied. Postoperative care: • Postoperatively patient was given adequate analgesic and sedative. Parenteral antibiotic was continued for 3 days after which it was followed by oral form till wound healed. • Postoperatively

patient

was

advised

active

finger

exercises

immediately after recovery from the anesthesia. Drain was removed after 48 hours • Limb elevation was maintained for the first 48-72 hours. After which patient used elbow bag. Follow up: Stitches were removed at the out patient department, 12 days after operation. His wound had healed well. He was advised to continue active exercises of finger with shoulder movement He was advised to continue the back slab for 4 weeks after operation.


At first follow up visit ( 4 weeks): • There was complaint of pain at the graft donor site. The elbow and the shoulder was pain free. Active abduction and flexion of the shoulder with hand position up to the top of the head was possible. • Radiological examination revealed no callus formation. The fixation was secured and fracture alignment was maintained. The patient was advised to do active exercise of elbow and shoulder as per recommendation of the physiotherapist. At the visit immediately before the final visit (12 weeks) : • The patient had no complaints. Examination revealed satisfactory range of shoulder and elbow movement and absence of any infection. • Radiologically, bridging callus was seen, showing union of the fracture. Fracture site remained aligned and fixation was secured. • Patient was advised to continue the shoulder and elbow exercises. At the final visit (24 seeks) : • The patient had no complaints. There was no deformity. • Radiologically, the fracture consolidation was completed. The fixation remained secured and fracture site was anatomically aligned. • The result was evaluated as excellent. • Functional outcome was satisfactory.


Fig 9.6: Radiologically ,the fracture union was completed. The fixation remained secured and fracture site was anatomically aligned. (At the time of follow-up, 12 weeks.)


Fig. 9.8. Range of Movement of the Shoulder Joint (The patient gained full movement)


Fig. 9.9 Range of Movement of the Elbow Joint (The patient gained full movement) Case ID no. 033 Case profile : 1. Hospital Reg. No.

:

4521/21

2. Name

:

Mr. Ran Mahboob

3. Age

:

28years

4. Sex

:

Male

5. Occupation

:

Service holder

6. Date of injury

:

14.14.06

7. Date of admission

:

17.04.06

8. Date of operation

:

24.04.06

9. Date of discharge

:

01.05.06

10. Cause of injury

:

Motor vehicle accident - Pedestrian

11. Side affected

:

Left

12. Involvement of dominant hand

:

No

13. Case type

:

Early failure of conservative treatment

14. Previous treatment

:

Conservative

15. Associated injury

:

Nil

16. Postoperative Hospital stay :

7 days

17. Time interval between injury and operation :

02 weeks


Management: On admission: Patient presented with the complaints of: • Severe pain in the left arm • Deformity of the left arm • Abnormal movement at the fracture site • Difficulty in movement of the left arm There was a history of MVA followed by closed comminuted fracture of distal third of the shaft of Lt. humerus. He was attended a local clinic and was treated by conservative method. But the fracture alignment was not good and became distracted. On examination there was tenderness at the fracture site. There was no neurological deficit. Pre-operative preparation: • Routine blood and urine investigation were done and found all the parameters within the normal limits. • Chest X-ray P/A view and X-ray of the Lt. arm including shoulder and elbow in A/P and lateral views were done. X-ray of the left arm showed comminuted fracture of the distal third of shaft of humerus. • Adequate size of plate with screws were selected. • Patient was then prepared for operation. • He was given third generation cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) 1gram i/v at the time of induction of anaesthesia. Operation: • Position of the patient - Lateral with a pillow under the arm. • Anaesthesia

- Regional block.


• Approach of the fracture site - Posterior midline approach. • Operative technique - As described in the surgical procedure. Proper haemostasis was done and wound closed in layers with a drain in situ. A long arm back slab was given. Postoperative care: • Postoperatively patient was given adequate analgesic and sedative. Parenteral antibiotic was continued for 3 days after which it was followed by oral form till wound healed. • Postoperatively patient was advised active finger exercises immediately after recovery from the anesthesia. Drain was removed after 48 hours • Limb elevation was maintained for the first 48-72 hours. After which patient used elbow bag. Follow up: Stitches were removed at the out patient department, 12 days after operation. His wound had healed well. He was advised to continue active exercises of finger with shoulder movement He was advised to continue the back slab for 4 weeks after operation. At first follow up visit (4 weeks): • The elbow, the shoulder and the fracture site was pain free. Active abduction and flexion of the shoulder with hand position up to the top of the head was possible. • Radiological examination revealed callus formation. The fixation was secured and fracture alignment was maintained. The patient was advised to do active exercise of elbow and shoulder as per recommendation of the physiotherapist. At the visit immediately before the final visit (14 weeks ) :


• The patient had no complaints. Examination revealed satisfactory range of shoulder and elbow movement and absence of any infection. • Radiologically, bridging callus was seen, showing union of the fracture. Fracture site remained aligned and fixation was secured. • Patient was advised to continue the shoulder and elbow exercises. At the final visit (24 seeks): • The patient had no complaints. There was no deformity. • Radiologically, the fracture consolidation was completed. The fixation remained secured and fracture site was anatomically aligned. • The result was evaluated as excellent. • Functional outcome was satisfactory.


Fig. 9.10 Radiologicaly ,the callus

Radiologicaly ,the fracture union was

appeared. The fixation remained secured

completed. The fixation remained secured

and fracture site was anatomically aligned.

and fracture site was anatomically aligned.

(At the time of followup, 4 weeks.)

(At the time of final followup, 14 weeks.)

Fig. 9.11 Midline Posterior Approach the Incision line & the healed scar.


Fig. 9.12

Range of Movement of the Shoulder Joint (Full movement gained except a little deficit in internal rotation)


Fig. 9.13 Range of Movement of the Elbow Joint (The patient gained full movement)

Humerus is an unpaired bone, the shaft of which is totally covered by a thick layer of soft tissue  

Humerus is an unpaired bone, the shaft of which is totally covered by a thick layer of soft tissue. Approximately 10% of all long bone fract...

Advertisement