Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation for Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The two techniques most utilized in the surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures are open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN). Although there have been multiple comparative clinical studies comparing outcomes for these two treatments, studies have not suggested one approach to be superior to the other. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the treatment of humeral shaft fractures with either ORIF or intramedullary nail. Methods: We conducted this meta-analysis utilizing stricter inclusion and broader exclusion criteria to examine these two common approaches. We examined those articles which have compared first-time, closed fractures of the humeral diaphysis in adults in fracture patterns that could be treated equivalently by intramedullary nail or plate fixation. The primary outcome of interest was nonunion, and studies that did not report nonunion rates were excluded. Results: There were a total of 1,926 abstracts reviewed and a total of three articles were included in the final analysis after screening. There was no significant difference in the incidence of nonunion between plating (2/111, 1.8%) and nailing (4/104, 3.9%) (P>0.05). The mean difference in average time to union for plated fractures and nailed fractures was 1.11 weeks (95% CI 0.82 to 1.40) which was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in the incidence of radial nerve palsy (12/111, 10.8%) for plating compared to nailing (0/104, 0%) (P=0.0004). There was no difference in incidence of post-operative infection between the two groups intramedullary nailing (P>0.05). Conclusion: The results of this analysis demonstrate an increased risk of iatrogenic radial nerve injury, and a significantly shorter time to union when treating humeral shaft fractures with plating as compared to intramedullary nailing. There was no difference in the rates of nonunion or delayed union. Based on the evidence, both plating and nailing can achieve a similar treatment effect on humeral shaft fractures.

Radiographic Scoring of Humeral Shaft Fractures Helps Identify Patients at Risk of Surgery for Delayed Union.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing external validity and clinical relevance of modified radiographic union score (mRUS) to predict delayed union in closed humeral shaft fractures initially treated with conservative management. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Single urban academic level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing initial nonoperative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture with a minimum of 3 months follow-up and at least one set of follow-up orthogonal x-rays within 12-weeks of injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the (mRUS) system for humeral shaft fractures, and establishing an mRUS threshold at 6 and 12 weeks postinjury to predict surgery for delayed union. RESULTS: mRUS demonstrated substantial interobserver agreement on all assessments. Intraobserver agreement was nearly perfect for all reviewers on repeat assessment. mRUS of ≤7 at 6 ± 1 weeks follow-up was associated with surgery for delayed union with an odds ratio of 4.88 (95% CI, 2.52-9.44, P < 0.01), sensitivity of 0.286, and specificity of 0.924. At 12 ± 1 weeks follow-up, the same threshold demonstrated a stronger association with an odds ratio of 14.7 (95% CI, 4.9-44.1, P < 0.01), sensitivity of 0.225, and specificity of 0.981. CONCLUSIONS: The mRUS for humeral shaft fractures is reliable and reproducible providing an objective way to track subtle changes in radiographs over time. An mRUS of ≤7 at 6 or 12 weeks postinjury is highly specific for delayed union. This can be helpful when counseling patients about the risk of nonunion and potential early surgical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Is the Optimal Irrigation Solution in the Management of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Joint Infections?

BACKGROUND: Thorough irrigation and debridement using an irrigation solution is a well-established treatment for both acute and chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). In the absence of concrete data, identifying the optimal irrigation agent and protocol remains challenging. METHODS: A thorough review of the current literature on the various forms of irrigations and their additives was performed to evaluate the efficacy and limitations of each solution as pertaining to pathogen eradication in the treatment of PJI. As there is an overall paucity of high-quality literature comparing irrigation additives to each other and to any control, no meta-analyses could be performed. The literature was therefore summarized in this review article to give readers concise information on current irrigation options and their known risks and benefits. RESULTS: Antiseptic solutions include povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine gluconate, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid, and preformulated commercially available combination solutions. The current literature suggests that intraoperative use of antiseptic irrigants may play a role in treating PJI, but definitive clinical studies comparing antiseptic to no antiseptic irrigation are lacking. Furthermore, no clinical head-to-head comparisons of different antiseptic irrigants have identified an optimal irrigation solution. CONCLUSION: Further high-quality studies on the optimal irrigation additive and protocol for the management of PJI are warranted to guide future evidence-based decisions.

Pursuit of the ideal antiseptic irrigation solution in the management of periprosthetic joint infections.

Irrigation and debridement in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) serve an integral role in the eradication of bacterial burden and subsequent re-infection rates. Identifying the optimal irrigation agent, however, remains challenging, as there is limited data on superiority. Direct comparison of different irrigation solutions remains difficult because of variability in treatment protocols. While basic science studies assist in the selection of irrigation fluids, in vitro results do not directly translate into clinical significance once implemented in vivo. Dilute povidone iodine, hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine gluconate, acetic acid, sodium hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid, and preformed combination solutions all have potential against a broad spectrum of PJI pathogens with their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Future clinical studies are needed to identify ideal irrigation solutions with optimal bactericidal properties and low cytotoxicity for PJI treatment.