-
Operative treatment of humeral shaft fracture: Comparision of plate fuation and intramedullary nailing
-
Sang Ho Ha, Jae Won You, Sang Hong Lee, Dong Min Shin, Young Bae Pyo, Byoung Ho Lee, Min Hyok Choi
-
J Korean Soc Fract 1999;12(3):712-719. Published online July 31, 1999
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12671/jksf.1999.12.3.712
-
-
 Abstract
 PDF
- PURPOSE
Examine a humeral shaft fracture which had been treated with a plate and screw fixation or intramedullary nailing and compare these two methods with each other according to clinical and radiologic results and access the clinical avaliablity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Take 116 cases of humeral shaft fracture which had been treated with plate and screw fixation(73 cases) or intramedullary nailing(43 cases) and compare these two methods with each other according to bone union time, average operation time and nonunion rate.
RESULTS
Bony union in plate fixation was achieved 1.2 weeks earlier than intramedullary nailing(P>0.05). The average time of operation in intramedullary nailing was 58 minutes, which was shorter than that in plate fixation(P<0.05). The prevalence of nonunion was higher in intramedullary nailing than that in plate fixation, which was thought due to the fanning relaxation, fracture site distraction and/or inappropriate operative technique. Limitation of shoulder motion occasionally occurred in intramedullary nailing, so approriate device selection and surgical technique should be considered.
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that the results of interlocking IM nailing were not superior to the results of plate fixation. But it is an attractive technique for the rapid closed stabilization of polytrauma patients and segmental and communited fractures.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Clinical and Radiographical Follow-up for Residual Displacement of Fracture Fragments after Interlocking Intramedullary Nailing in Humeral Shaft Fractures
Jae-Kwang Yum, Dong-Ju Lim, Eui-Yub Jung, Su-Een Sohn
The Journal of the Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society.2013; 16(2): 107. CrossRef
-
67
View
-
0
Download
-
1
Crossref
|
E-submission
KFS
