Intramedullary nailing versus cemented plate for treating metastatic pathological fracture of the proximal humerus: a comparison study and literature review.
Intramedullary nailing
Metastatic bone tumor
Pathological fracture
Proximal humerus
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
ISSN: 1590-9999
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Traumatol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101090931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Aug 2023
24 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
21
02
2023
accepted:
21
07
2023
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
25
8
2023
entrez:
24
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pathological fracture of the humerus causes severe pain, limited use of the hand, and decreased quality of life. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intramedullary nailing and locking plate in treating metastatic pathological fractures of the proximal humerus. This retrospective comparison study included 45 patients (22 male, 23 female) with proximal humerus metastatic pathological fractures who underwent surgical treatment between 2011 and 2022. All data were collected from medical records and were analyzed retrospectively. Seventeen cases underwent intramedullary nailing plus cement augmentation, and 28 cases underwent locking plate plus cement augmentation. The main outcomes were pain relief, function scores, and complications. Among 45 patients with mean age 61.7 ± 9.7 years, 23 (51.1%) had multiple bone metastases, and 28 (62.2%) were diagnosed with impending fractures. The nailing group had significantly lower blood loss [100 (60-200) versus 500 (350-600) ml, p < 0.001] and shorter hospital stay (8.4 ± 2.6 versus 12.3 ± 4.3 days, p < 0.001) than the plating group. Average follow-up time of the nailing group was 12 months and 16.5 months for the plating group. The nailing group had higher visual analog scale (VAS) scores than the plating group, indicating greater pain relief with nailing [7 (6-8) versus 6 (5-7), p = 0.01]. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores [28 (27-29) versus 27 (26.5-28.5), p = 0.23] were comparable between groups. No complications, local recurrence, or revision surgery were reported until the last follow-up in either group. However, one case in the plating group had a humeral head collapse and fragmentation without needing revision surgery. Intramedullary nailing with cement augmentation is a viable option for treating proximal humerus metastatic pathological fracture, providing rigid fixation and better pain relief resulting in earlier mobility to optimize functional outcomes. Less invasive procedure with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay also benefits patients. Level of evidence Level II. Trial registration statement Not applicable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pathological fracture of the humerus causes severe pain, limited use of the hand, and decreased quality of life. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intramedullary nailing and locking plate in treating metastatic pathological fractures of the proximal humerus.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective comparison study included 45 patients (22 male, 23 female) with proximal humerus metastatic pathological fractures who underwent surgical treatment between 2011 and 2022. All data were collected from medical records and were analyzed retrospectively. Seventeen cases underwent intramedullary nailing plus cement augmentation, and 28 cases underwent locking plate plus cement augmentation. The main outcomes were pain relief, function scores, and complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 45 patients with mean age 61.7 ± 9.7 years, 23 (51.1%) had multiple bone metastases, and 28 (62.2%) were diagnosed with impending fractures. The nailing group had significantly lower blood loss [100 (60-200) versus 500 (350-600) ml, p < 0.001] and shorter hospital stay (8.4 ± 2.6 versus 12.3 ± 4.3 days, p < 0.001) than the plating group. Average follow-up time of the nailing group was 12 months and 16.5 months for the plating group. The nailing group had higher visual analog scale (VAS) scores than the plating group, indicating greater pain relief with nailing [7 (6-8) versus 6 (5-7), p = 0.01]. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores [28 (27-29) versus 27 (26.5-28.5), p = 0.23] were comparable between groups. No complications, local recurrence, or revision surgery were reported until the last follow-up in either group. However, one case in the plating group had a humeral head collapse and fragmentation without needing revision surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Intramedullary nailing with cement augmentation is a viable option for treating proximal humerus metastatic pathological fracture, providing rigid fixation and better pain relief resulting in earlier mobility to optimize functional outcomes. Less invasive procedure with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay also benefits patients. Level of evidence Level II. Trial registration statement Not applicable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37620629
doi: 10.1186/s10195-023-00721-7
pii: 10.1186/s10195-023-00721-7
pmc: PMC10449752
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Cements
0
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45Subventions
Organisme : the FEMH grand
ID : (No. FEMH-2020-C-049)
Informations de copyright
© 2023. Societa Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia (Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology SIOT).
Références
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Feb;22(2):90-100
pubmed: 24486755
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003 Jul-Aug;11(4):282-8
pubmed: 12889867
Am J Clin Oncol. 2022 Sep 1;45(9):379-380
pubmed: 35983966
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Aug;(437):201-8
pubmed: 16056050
Clin Orthop Surg. 2016 Dec;8(4):458-464
pubmed: 27904730
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Jan 10;20(1):20
pubmed: 30630465
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014 Oct;96(7):e32-5
pubmed: 25245723
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Apr;467(4):1035-41
pubmed: 18820983
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Aug;93(8):1093-7
pubmed: 21768635
Injury. 2010 Nov;41(11):1112-6
pubmed: 20828692
Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996 Dec;22(6):621-6
pubmed: 9005151
Musculoskelet Surg. 2022 Mar;106(1):35-41
pubmed: 32451845
Injury. 2011 Apr;42(4):330-8
pubmed: 21093859
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 May;25(5):e130-8
pubmed: 26895601
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Oct 17;15:93-98
pubmed: 33680826
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021 May;31(4):769-777
pubmed: 33211233
Int Orthop. 2017 Jul;41(7):1471-1480
pubmed: 28120001
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Oct;(415 Suppl):S212-8
pubmed: 14600613
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Apr;131(4):503-8
pubmed: 20740287
Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2006 Mar 01;3:5
pubmed: 16509975
Surg Oncol. 2011 Mar;20(1):e32-7
pubmed: 20870403
J Orthop Traumatol. 2008 Mar;9(1):5-10
pubmed: 19384474
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 May;92(5):707-12
pubmed: 20436010