Effect of Surgery vs Functional Bracing on Functional Outcome Among Patients With Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Humeral shaft fractures traditionally have been treated nonsurgically, but there has been a steady increase in the rate of surgery over the past 2 decades without high-quality evidence to justify the trend.OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing in the treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland, enrollment between November 2012 and January 2018 with a final follow-up of January 2019. A total of 82 adult patients with closed, unilateral, displaced humeral shaft fracture met criteria for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had cognitive disabilities preventing them from following the protocol or had multimorbidity or multiple trauma. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation (n = 38) or to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing (n = 44). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASUREThe primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 12 months (range, 0 to 100 points, 0 denotes no disability and 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). RESULTS Among 82 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48.9 years; 38 women [46%]; 44 men [54%]), 78 (95%) completed the trial. Thirteen (30%) of the patients assigned to functional bracing underwent surgery during the 12-month follow-up period to promote healing of the fracture. At 12 months, the mean DASH score was 8.9 (95% CI, 4.2 to 13.6) in the surgery group and 12.0 (95% CI, 7.7 to 16.4) in the bracing group (between-group difference, −3.1 points; 95% CI, −9.6 to 3.3; P = .34). Eleven patients (25%) allocated to functional bracing developed fracture nonunion. Three patients (8%) allocated to surgery developed a temporary radial nerve palsy.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with closed humeral shaft fracture, internal fixation surgery, compared with nonoperative functional bracing, did not significantly improve functional outcomes at 12 months. However, the substantial amount of treatment crossover from nonoperative to surgical treatment should be considered when interpreting the trial results.

Treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a new minimally-invasive plate osteosynthesis versus open reduction and internal fixation: a case control study

“…The traditional anterolateral approach may cause iatrogenic injury to the radial nerve, and iatrogenic radial nerve paralysis occurs in 0–12% of cases [ 11 ]. Extensive intraoperative exposure of soft tissue in ORIF also increases the incidence of deep postoperative infection of the incision [ 12 ]. In recent years, scholars have applied MIPO technology in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture and achieved good results.…”

The Ethics of Treating Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Report

“…In situations of clinical equipoise, when nonoperative and operative outcomes are similar, physicians must weigh the unique short- and long-term risks associated with surgical intervention during the pandemic. Although acute Achilles tendon rupture represents one classic example, many others exist, including management of closed displaced humeral shaft fractures [18], closed proximal humerus fractures [11], and closed displaced distal radius fractures in low-demand individuals [2]. While these pathologies have unique nuances in their management, each has high-quality evidence suggesting similar outcomes between nonoperative and operative management [2, 11, 18, 22].…”

Surgery versus non-operative treatment for ER-stress unstable Weber-B unimalleolar fractures: a study protocol for a prospective randomized non-inferiority (Super-Fin) trial

“…To safeguard against biased interpretation of the trial data, we will interpret the results of the trial according to a blinded data interpretation scheme, 37 a procedure we have found helpful in our previous trials. [38][39][40] Briefly, an independent statistician provides the Writing Committee with blinded results from the preliminary analyses, the groups labeled as group A and group B. The Writing Committee then considers the interpretation of the results until a consensus is reached and agrees in writing on the alternative interpretations of the findings.…”