WHICH SURGICAL TREATMENT IS PREFERABLE IN HUMERAL DIAPHYSEAL FRACTURES? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Humeral diaphyseal fractures are very common. Many treatments have been proposed but the choice of the best one is often complex.

The aim of the proposed study is to analyze the data in the literature in order to define the risks, advantages and disadvantages of the alternative surgical treatments (anterograde/retrograde intramedullary nailing, ORIF, MIPO).

PubMed / Medline and Google Scholar were searched for prospective randomized or case-control retrospective studies about surgical treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures with nailing, ORIF and MIPO, according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome considered was the fracture healing time by comparing nailing-ORIF, nailing-MIPO and ORIF-MIPO. Differences in the rate of post-operative complications, patient satisfaction, intra-operative blood loss and surgical time were considered secondary outcomes.

506 studies were identified, but only 10 studies were valid for the systematic review. No differences between nailing, ORIF and MIPO were recorded in terms of healing and surgical times. Intra-operative blood loss was significantly higher during ORIF (p 0.024). No differences were found in the restoration of function evaluated using clinical scales. The rate of complications was 27.4% for nailing, 21.2% for ORIF and 13.8% for MIPO. The difference was statistically significant only by comparing nailing with MIPO (p 0.012), probably because anterograde nailing is more often correlated to shoulder impairment. ORIF was at higher risk of infection compared to nailing (p 0.007).

Humeral diaphyseal fractures require careful pre-operative planning, ensuring reduced healing time, less soft tissue damage and low rate of complications. The lower exposure of the fracture allows for excellent results with reduced bleeding and lower risk of complications.