Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2012 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 4

Humerus cisim kırıklarının tedavisi sonrası omuz ve dirsek fonksiyonlarının değerlendirilmesi: 20-132 ay takipli çalışma

Evaluation of shoulder and elbow functions after treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a 20-132-month follow-up study

Pages
229–236
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)

In the presence of surgical indications, plate and screw fixation technique is the most effective method in terms of shoulder and elbow functions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of shoulder and elbow functions in humeral shaft fractures treated with functional brace, plate and screw osteosynthesis or intramedullary nailing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The study included 128 patients treated for humeral shaft fracture.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the presence of surgical indications, plate and screw fixation technique is the most effective method in terms of shoulder and elbow functions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of shoulder and elbow functions in humeral shaft fractures treated with functional brace, plate and screw osteosynthesis or intramedullary nailing. Methods: The study included 128 patients treated for humeral shaft fracture. The patients were divided into three groups according to treatment method: Group 1 (n=62) received functional brace, Group 2 (n=36) plate and screw osteosynthesis and Group 3 (n=30) intramedullary nailing. Coronal and sagittal humeral angulations were measured radiologically during the final follow-up. Shoulder and elbow functions were evaluated using the Constant shoulder score, the Mayo Elbow Performance Scoring and range of movement measurements. Results: The mean follow-up time was 74 (range: 20 to 132) months. Mean Constant shoulder scores were 92.4 in Group 1, 85.6 in Group 2 and 74 in Group 3. A statistically significant difference was detected between the Constant shoulder scores of Groups 2 and 3 (p<0.05). In the last follow-up, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score of Group 1 was 96.9, Group 2 was 95.7 and Group 3 was 89.2. Statistically significant differences were not detected between the Group 2 and 3 (p>0.05). In the statistical evaluation of the Constant shoulder scores, a statistically significant difference was detected between the Constant scores of patients with a varus angulation greater than 20° and those with neutral alignment. Conclusion: Functional results of humeral shaft fractures treated with functional brace appear to be satisfactory. Varus and antecurvatum may affect shoulder and elbow function. In the presence of surgical indications, plate and screw fixation technique is the most effective method in terms of shoulder and elbow functions.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı fonksiyonel breys, plak-vida ile osteosentez ve intramedüller çivileme yöntemi ile tedavi edilmiş humerus cisim kırıklarının fonksiyonel sonuçlarını değerlendirmekti. Çalışma planı: Çalışmaya humerus cisim kırığı tanısıyla tedavi edilmiş 128 hasta katıldı. Bu hastalar tedavi yöntemlerine göre 3 gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1 fonksiyonel breys ile tedavi edilen (n=62), Grup 2 plak-vida ile osteosentez uygulanan (n=36), Grup 3 intramedüller çivi uygulanan (n=30) hastalardan oluştu. Hastaların son kontrollerinde radyolojik olarak koronal ve sagital humeral açılanmaları ölçüldü. Omuz fonksiyonları için Constant skorlaması ve omuz eklem hareket açıklığı, dirsek için Mayo dirsek performans skorlaması ve dirsek eklem hareket açıklığı değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama takip süresi 74 (dağılım: 20-132) ay idi. Ortalama Constant omuz skoru Grup 1’de 92.4, Grup 2’de 85.6, Grup 3’te 74 idi. İstatistiksel değerlendirmede Constant skoru açısından Grup 2 ve 3 arasında anlamlı fark tespit edildi (p 0.05). Varus açılanması 20 dereceden fazla olan hastalarda, koronal düzlemde nötral olan hasta grubuyla karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha kötü Constant skorlarının olduğu tespit edildi (p<0.05). Çıkarımlar: Sonuç olarak, fonksiyonel breys tedavisinde omuz ve dirsek fonksiyonu sonuçları tatmin edicidir. Varus ve antekurvatum gibi humeral açılanmalar omuz ve dirsek fonksiyonlarını etkileyebilmektedir. Cerrahi endikasyonu olan kırıklarda omuz ve dirsek fonksiyonları açısından plak-vida osteosentezi tercih edilecek tedavi yöntemi olmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

FIRAT, A., DEVECİ, A., GÜLER, F., ÖÇGÜDER, D. A., OĞUZ, T., BOZKURT, M. (2012). Humerus cisim kırıklarının tedavisi sonrası omuz ve dirsek fonksiyonlarının değerlendirilmesi: 20-132 ay takipli çalışma. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 4, 229–236. https://ajindex.com/articles/354043

References (17)

  1. Klenerman L. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1966;48:105-11
  2. Tytherleigh-Strong G, Walls N, McQueen MM. The epi- demiology of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:249-53
  3. 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;478-86
  4. Coventry MB, Laurnen LE. Ununited fractures of the mid- dle and upper humerus. Special problems in treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1970;(69):192-8
  5. Heim D, Herkert F, Hess P, Regazzoni P. Surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures – the Basel experience. J Trauma 1993;35:226-32
  6. Hunter SG. The closed treatment of fractures of the humer- al shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;(164):192-8
  7. Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. The comprehen- sive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: Springer- Verlag; 1990
  8. Ajmal M, O’Sullivan M, McCabe J, Curtin W. Antegrade locked intramedullary nailing in humeral shaft fractures. Injury 2001;32:692-4
  9. Cox MA, Dolan M, Synnott K, McElwain JP. Closed inter- locking nailing of humeral shaft fractures with Russell-Taylor nail. J Orthop Trauma 2000;14:349-53
  10. Flinkkilä T, Hyvönen P, Lakovaara M, Linden T, Ristiniemi J, Hämäläinen M. Intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. A retrospective study of 126 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1999;70:133-6
  11. Hems TB, Bhullar TP. Interlocking nailing of humeral shaft fractures: the Oxford experience 1991 to 1994. Injury 1996;27: 485-9
  12. Ingman AM, Waters DA. Locked intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. Implant design, surgical technique and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76:23-9
  13. Robinson CM, Bell KM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Locked nailing of humeral shaft fractures: experience in Edinburgh over a two-year period. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74:558-62
  14. Stern PJ, Mattingly DA, Pomeroy DL, Zenni EJ Jr, Kreig JK. Intramedullary fixation of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:639-46
  15. Varley GW. The Seidel locking nail: the Nottingham experi- ence. Injury 1995;26:155-7
  16. Lin J, Hou SM. Antegrade locked nailing for humeral shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;(365):201-10
  17. McCormack RG, Brien D, Buckley RE, McKee MD, Powell J, Schemitsch EH. Fixation of fractures of the shaft of the humerus by dynamic compression plate or intramedullary nail. A prospective, randomised trial. J Bone Joi