The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:2343-2347.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00334
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 Trauma Test 14: Winter 2007 (publication date February 15, 2007; expiration...
CME 4: October, November, December 2006 (publication date January 5, 2007; ...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jawa, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ring, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jawa, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ring, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Extra-Articular Distal-Third Diaphyseal Fractures of the Humerus

A Comparison of Functional Bracing and Plate Fixation

Andrew Jawa, MD1, Pearce McCarty, MD1, Job Doornberg, MS1, Mitch Harris, MD2 and David Ring, MD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail address for D. Ring: dring{at}partners.org
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115

Investigation performed at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

In support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from the AO Foundation. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: There are strong advocates for both operative and nonoperative treatment of distal-third diaphyseal fractures of the humerus, but there are few comparative data. We performed a retrospective comparison of these two treatment methods.

Methods: Fifty-one consecutive patients with a closed, extra-articular fracture of the distal one-third of the humeral diaphysis were identified from an orthopaedic trauma database. Forty patients were followed for at least six months or until healing of the fracture. Eleven patients were excluded because of inadequate follow-up. Nineteen patients had been managed with plate-and-screw fixation, and twenty-one had been managed with functional bracing.

Results: Among the operatively treated patients, one had loss of fixation, one had a postoperative infection, and one required tendon transfers for the treatment of a preoperative radial nerve palsy that did not resolve. Three new postoperative radial nerve palsies developed, and one had not resolved when the patient was last evaluated, three months after surgery. All operatively treated fractures healed with <10° of angular deformity, and one patient lost 20° of shoulder or elbow motion. Among the nonoperatively treated fractures, two were converted to plate fixation because of the treating surgeons' concern regarding alignment and radial nerve palsy. Only one patient had >30° of malalignment in any plane. Two patients had development of skin breakdown during treatment and completed treatment in a sling. Two patients lost ≥20° of elbow or shoulder motion.

Conclusions: For extra-articular distal-third diaphyseal humeral fractures, operative treatment achieves more predictable alignment and potentially quicker return of function but risks iatrogenic nerve injury and infection and the need for reoperation. Functional bracing can be associated with skin problems and varying degrees of angular deformity, but function and range of motion are usually excellent.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
P. A. Cole, T. Miclau III, and M. Bhandari
What's New in Orthopaedic Trauma
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2007; 89(11): 2560 - 2577.
[Full Text] [PDF]