Résumé
Objective To analyze the iatrogenic fractures following treatment of type 12-A humeral shaft fractures with antegrade intramedullary nails. Methods We reviewed the patients who had been treated with antegrade intramedullary nails for type 12-A humeral shaft fracture from October 2006 to March 2017. They were 13 males and 13 females with an age range from 22 to 76 years and an average age of 44. 5 years. Six of them were complicated with other fractures or radial nerve injury. We divided the patients into an iatrogenic fracture ( IF ) group and a non-iatrogenic fracture ( NIF ) group and compared gender, age, fracture type, reaming and nonunion between the 2 groups. Results The follow-up time for the 26 patients ranged from 13 to 182 weeks ( 63. 8 weeks on average ) . Of them, 7 suffered iatrogenic fracture and 4 nonunion. The union time for the other 22 patients ranged from 9 to 29 weeks ( 14. 6 weeks on average ) . All the 7 patients in the iatrogenic fracture group were treated with reaming while only 9 of the 19 patients in the non-iatrogenic fracture group were treated with reaming. Nonunion occurred in 3 patients in the iatrogenic fracture group but in only one patient in the non-iatrogenic fracture group. All the above comparisons were statistically significant between the 2 groups ( P < 0. 05 ) but there were no significant differences in comparisons between the 2 groups regarding gender, age, nail diameter, fracture type, way of locking proximal and distal screws or rate of secondary surgery ( P > 0. 05 ) . Conclusions Antegrade intramedullary nailing may cause an iatro-genic fracture in the treatment of type12-A humeral shaft fractures. The iatrogenic fracture may affect fracture union. Intraoperative reaming may be the risk factor for the iatrogenic fracture.
Résumé
Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis (ADO) is a sclerotic bone disorder due to failure of osteoclasts. ADO poses difficulties during arthroplasty because of the increased chance for iatrogenic fractures due to sclerotic bone. ADO is divided into two types based on radiological findings, fracture risk, and osteoclast activity. These differences suggest less brittle bone in patients with ADO I compared to that of patients with ADO II, which suggests a smaller chance of preoperative fractures during cementless arthroplasty in ADO I compared with that in ADO II. A case of cementless total knee arthroplasty in a patient with ADO I is presented. Total hip arthroplasty was performed during follow-up, and known major problems related to ADO II were experienced. Therefore, the differences between ADO I and ADO II may not be clinically relevant for an iatrogenic fracture during arthroplasty in patients with ADO.