Journals / İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 2

Does the Change of Retroversion Angle Effect the Clinical Results of Conservative Treatment of Humerus Diaphyseal Fractures?

Konservatif Olarak Tedavi Edilen Humerus Diyafiz Kırıklarında Retroversiyon Açısındaki Değişiklikler Klinik Sonuçlara Etki Eder mi?

Pages
170–176
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This has little effect on clinical functional outcomes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Retroversion changes, that can be seen after humeral diaphyseal fractures, can play a role on functional results by affecting the mobility and stability of shoulder joint.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Of the 28 patients included in the study, 14 (50%) were female and 14 (50%) were male.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This has little effect on clinical functional outcomes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Retroversion changes, that can be seen after humeral diaphyseal fractures, can play a role on functional results by affecting the mobility and stability of shoulder joint. The aim of this study is to evaluate the retroversion angles of healed humerus by using computed tomography and to examine the effects of retroversion on functional results. Methods: Fifty-two humeral diaphyseal fractures were evaluated retrospectively. Retroversion angles of fractured humerus and contralateral humerus of all patients were measured by computed tomography. Constant Shoulder Scoring (COS) system was used to evaluate functional results. Mann Whitney-U test, Spearman and Pearson Correlation tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Of the 28 patients included in the study, 14 (50%) were female and 14 (50%) were male. The mean followup period was 23.6 months (range 22-26), with a mean age of 45.14 (range 15-80) years. In 15 patients, the retroversion angle was increased (median 21.46 degrees), and in 13 patients the retroversion angle was decreased (antevert) (median 16.34 degrees). Changes in retroversion angles were not found to be statistically significant (p=0.828). COS values were found to be lower in patients with deeper changes in retroversion angles (p=0.433). Conclusion: Wide retroversion intervals can be obtained in humerus diaphyseal fractures by conservative treatment. This has little effect on clinical functional outcomes.

Özet

Amaç: Humerus diyafiz kırıkları sonrasında görülebilen retroversiyon değişimleri omuz eklem mobilite ve stabilitesini etkileyerek fonksiyonel sonuçlar üzerinde rol oynayabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, diafiz kırığı sonrası iyileşmiş humerus ile aynı bireyin karşı taraf sağlam humerus retroversiyon açılarının bilgisayarlı tomografi ile değerlendirilmesi ve retroversiyondaki değişimin fonksiyonel sonuçlara olan etkisinin incelenmesidir. Yöntem: Kliniğimizde takipli 35 humerus diyafiz kırığı retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Tüm hastaların kırık ve sağlam taraf humerus retroversiyon açıları bilgisayarlı tomografi ile ölçüldü. Fonksiyonel sonuçların değerlendirilmesi için Constant Omuz Skorlaması(COS) kullanıldı. İstatistiksel değerlendirme için Mann Whitney-U Testi, Spearman ve Pearson Korelasyon analizleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 28 hastadan 14’ü (%50) kadın, 14’ü (%50) erkekti. Ortalama takip zamanı 23,6 aydı (Aralık 22-26), yaş ortalaması 45,14 (Aralık 15-80) idi. On beş hastada retroversiyon açısının arttığı ve ortalamasının 21,46 derece olduğu görülürken, 13 hastada ise retroversiyon açısının azaldığı (antevert) ve ortalamasının 16,34 derece olduğu görüldü. Retroversiyon açılarında meydana gelen değişimler istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunamadı (p=0,828). Retroversiyon değişiminin daha fazla olduğu hastalarda COS değerlerinin daha düşük olduğu görülse de anlamlı fark bulunamadı (p=0,433). Sonuç: Humerus diyafiz kırıklarında konservatif tedavi ile geniş retroversiyon aralıkları elde edilebilir. Bu durumun klinik fonksiyonel sonuçlar üzerinde etkisi oldukça azdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞAN, N. Ö., ÇALIŞKAN, E., GENCER, B., VURAL, C. A. (2019). Does the Change of Retroversion Angle Effect the Clinical Results of Conservative Treatment of Humerus Diaphyseal Fractures?. İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 2, 170–176. https://ajindex.com/articles/189862

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Kapil Mâni KC, Gopal Sagar DC, Rijal L, Govinda KC, Shrestha BL. Study on outcome of fracture shaft of the humerus treated non-operatively with a functional brace. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(3):323-8.
  2. Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(4):478-86.
  3. Saka M, Yamauchi H, Yoshioka T, Hamada H, Gamada K. Conventional humeral retroversion measurements using computed tomography slices or ultrasound images are not correlated with the 3-dimensional humeral retroversion angle. Orthop J Sports Med. 2015;3(3):2325967115573701. Oh HJ, Kim W, Cayetano AA. Measurement methods for humeral retroversion using two-dimensional computed tomography scans: which is most concordant with the standard method? Clin Orthop Surg. 2017;9(2):223-31.
  4. Söderlund V, Kronberg M, Broström LA. Radiologic assessment of humeral head retroversion. Acta Radiol. 1989;30(5):501-5. [CrossRef] Kronberg M, Broström LA, Soderlund V. Retroversion of the humeral head in the normal shoulder and its relationship to the normal range of motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;253:113-7.
  5. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-4.
  6. Fabre T, Piton C, Leclouerec G, Gervais-Delion F, Durandeau A. Entrapment of the suprascapular nerve. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(3):414-9.
  7. Hernigou P, Duparc F, Hernigou A. Determining humeral retroversion with computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1753-62.
  8. Boileau P, Walch G, Liotard JP. Radiocinematographic study of active elevation of the prosthetic shoulder. Rev Chir Orthop. 1992;78:355-64.
  9. Saygı B, Karahan N, Karakuş O, Demir AL, Ozkan OC, SoyluBoy FN. Analysis of glenohumeral morphological factors for anterior shoulder instability and rotator cuff tear by magnetic resonance imaging. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018;26(2):2309499018768100. Moeckel BH, Altchek W, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Dines DM. Instability of the shoulder after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:492-7. De Boer FA, van Kampen PM, Huijsmans PE. Is there any influence of humeral component retroversion on range of motion and clinical outcome in reverse shoulderarthroplasty? A clinical study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2017;101(1):85-9.
  10. Gottschalk MB, Ghasem A, Todd D, Daruwalla J, Xerogeanes J, Karas S. Posterior shoulder instability: Does glenoid retroversion predict recurrence and contra