The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 82:478 (2000)
© 2000 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Functional Bracing for the Treatment of Fractures of the Humeral Diaphysis*
A. SARMIENTO, M.D. ,
J. B. ZAGORSKI, M.D. ,
G. A. ZYCH, D.O. ,
L. L. LATTA, Ph.D. and
C. A. CAPPS, M.D.#
Investigation performed at the University of Miami/Jackson
Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida,
and the University of Southern California/Los Angeles County Hospital,
Los Angeles, California
*No benefits in any form have been received or will be received
from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject
of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.
The Arthritis and Joint Replacement Institute, 1150 Campo Sano
Avenue, Suite 301, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. E-mail address:
asarm{at}bellsouth.net
7867 North Kendall Drive, Miami, Florida 33156.
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of
Miami, Miami, Florida 33101.
#2831 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, Montana 59804.
Background: Nonoperatively treated fractures
of the humeral diaphysis have a high rate of union with good functional
results. However, there are clinical situations in which operative
treatment is more appropriate, and, though interest in plate osteosynthesis
has decreased, intramedullary nailing has gained popularity in recent
years. We report the results of treating fractures of the humeral diaphysis
with a prefabricated brace that permits full motion of all joints
and progressive use of the injured extremity.
Methods: Between 1978 and 1990, 922 patients
who had a fracture of the humeral diaphysis were treated with a
prefabricated brace that permitted motion of adjacent joints. The
injured extremities were initially stabilized in an above-the-elbow
cast or a coaptation splint for an average of nine days (range, zero
to thirty-five days) prior to the application of the prefabricated
brace. Orthopaedic residents, supervised by teaching staff, provided
follow-up care in a special outpatient clinic. Radiographs were
made at each follow-up visit until the fracture healed.
Results: We were able to follow 620 (67 percent)
of the 922 patients. Four hundred and sixty-five (75 percent) of
the fractures were closed, and 155 (25 percent) were open. Nine
patients (6 percent) who had an open fracture and seven (less than
2 percent) who had a closed fracture had a nonunion after bracing.
In 87 percent of the 565 patients for whom anteroposterior radiographs
were available, the fracture healed in less than 16 degrees of varus angulation,
and in 81 percent of the 546 for whom lateral radiographs were available,
it healed in less than 16 degrees of anterior angulation. At the
time of brace removal, 98 percent of the patients had limitation
of shoulder motion of 25 degrees or less.
We were unable to follow most of the patients long-term, as they
did not return to the clinic once the fracture had united and use
of the brace had been discontinued.
Conclusions: Functional bracing for the treatment
of fractures of the humeral diaphysis is associated with a high rate
of union, particularly when used for closed fractures. The residual
angular deformities are usually functionally and aesthetically acceptable. The
present study illustrates the difficulties encountered in carrying
out long-term follow-up of indigent patients treated in charity
hospitals that are affiliated with teaching institutions. These
difficulties are also becoming common with patients insured under
managed-care organizations and are frequent in our peripatetic population.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. O. Anglen, M. T. Archdeacon, L. K. Cannada, and D. Herscovici Jr.
Avoiding Complications in the Treatment of Humeral Fractures
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
July 1, 2008;
90(7):
1580 - 1589.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Sarmiento
A Functional Below-the-Knee Brace for Tibial Fractures: A Report on Its Use in One Hundred and Thirty-Five Cases
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
September 1, 2007;
89(2_suppl_2):
157 - 169.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Sarmiento and L. Latta
The evolution of functional bracing of fractures
J Bone Joint Surg Br,
February 1, 2006;
88-B(2):
141 - 148.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. C. Shao, P. Harwood, M. R. W. Grotz, D. Limb, and P. V. Giannoudis
Radial nerve palsy associated with fractures of the shaft of the humerus: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
J Bone Joint Surg Br,
December 1, 2005;
87-B(12):
1647 - 1652.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M.W. Pugh and M. D. McKee
Advances in the Management of Humeral Nonunion
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg.,
January 1, 2003;
11(1):
48 - 59.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.án F. Rubel, P. Kloen, D. Campbell, M. Schwartz, A. Liew, E. Myers, and D. L. Helfet
Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Humeral Nonunions : A Biomechanical and Clinical Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
August 12, 2002;
84(8):
1315 - 1322.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Wiss
What's New in Orthopaedic Trauma
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
November 1, 2001;
83(11):
1762 - 1772.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Sarmiento, J. P. Waddell, and L. L. Latta
Diaphyseal Humeral Fractures: Treatment Options
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
October 1, 2001;
83(10):
1566 - 1579.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
