AI Article Synopsis
- Humeral shaft fractures make up about 3% of all fractures and are typically managed non-surgically with functional bracing, which became the standard practice in the 1970s.
- Surgical intervention is necessary in specific cases like open fractures, vascular injuries, or when nonsurgical methods fail, with techniques including external fixation and intramedullary nailing each having their pros and cons.
- There's a notable risk of radial nerve injury in surgical treatments, but positive outcomes can be achieved with careful patient selection.
Article Abstract
Humeral shaft fractures account for approximately 3% of all fractures. Nonsurgical management of humeral shaft fractures with functional bracing gained popularity in the 1970s, and this method is arguably the standard of care for these fractures. Still, surgical management is indicated in certain situations, including polytraumatic injuries, open fractures, vascular injury, ipsilateral articular fractures, floating elbow injuries, and fractures that fail nonsurgical management. Surgical options include external fixation, open reduction and internal fixation, minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis, and antegrade or retrograde intramedullary nailing. Each of these techniques has advantages and disadvantages, and the rate of fracture union may vary based on the technique used. A relatively high incidence of radial nerve injury has been associated with surgical management of humeral shaft fractures. However, good surgical outcomes can be achieved with proper patient selection.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-07-423 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!