[Translated article] The use of an anatomical implant compared to a straight LCP decreases extraction in posterior humeral MIPO.

PURPOSE: Posterior MIPO approach in the humerus has been described by using a 4.5mm LCP plate. Although straight plates have shown good results, they have not been designed to adapt to the distal humeral metaphysis. The goal of the study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in hardware removal after posterior MIPO with either a straight or a pre-contoured plate. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years, who had suffered mid-distal humeral shaft fracture, were treated by a posterior MIPO technique with a locking plate and had a minimum of 12-month follow-up were retrospectively included. Patients were separated into: group 1 (LCP 4.5mm straight plate); and group 2 (3.5mm anatomically shaped plate). Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed in the postoperative period. Patient-reported outcomes and the need of hardware removal because of pain were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven patients in group 1 and 40 in group 2. No patient was lost to follow-up. There were no statistical differences between in patient reported outcomes measures. All the fractures healed. Within group 1, 18% (95%CI: 6-38%) of the patients required implant removal while in group 2 this incidence was 0% (95%CI: 0-9%) (P 0.009). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the use of a 4.5mm LCP compared to an anatomical 3.5mm LCP in posterior MIPO of the humerus generates greater discomfort and therefore leads to a 18% increase in the risk of implant removal.

The use of an anatomical implant compared to a straight LCP decreases extraction in posterior humeral MIPO. / La utilización de un implante anatómico comparado a una LCP recta disminuye su extracción en la osteosíntesis percutánea posterior del húmero.

PURPOSE: Posterior MIPO approach in the humerus has been described by using a 4.5mm LCP plate. Although straight plates have shown good results, they have not been designed to adapt to the distal humeral metaphysis. The goal of the study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in hardware removal after posterior MIPO with either a straight or a pre-contoured plate. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years, who had suffered mid-distal humeral shaft fracture, were treated by a posterior MIPO technique with a locking plate and had a minimum of 12-month follow-up were retrospectively included. Patients were separated into: group 1 (LCP 4.5mm straight plate); and group 2 (3.5mm anatomically shaped plate). Clinical and radiological evaluation were performed in the postoperative period. Patient-reported outcomes and the need of hardware removal because of pain were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven patients in group 1 and 40 in group 2. No patient was lost to follow-up. There were no statistical differences between in patient reported outcomes measures. All the fractures healed. Within group 1, 18% (95%CI: 6-38%) of the patients required implant removal while in group 2 this incidence was 0% (95%CI: 0-9%) (P 0.009). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the use of a 4.5mm LCP compared to an anatomical 3.5mm LCP in posterior MIPO of the humerus generates greater discomfort and therefore leads to a 18% increase in the risk of implant removal.

Galeazzi fracture-dislocations: Long-term prognosis of the distal radioulnar joint.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate long-term functional and radiographic outcome in the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) for Galeazzi fracture-dislocation after anatomic reduction and rigid fixation of the radius. Fourteen patients, with an average age of 38 years, presenting with Galeazzi fracture-dislocation treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the radius and closed reduction of the DRUJ were retrospectively evaluated, with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. At final evaluation (mean: 8 years), the DRUJ was objectively and subjectively evaluated for range of motion (RoM), grip strength, ballottement test, pain on axial loading, function on visual analog scale (VAS) and DASH score. Radiographs and dynamic CT scans were performed to screen for DRUJ instability and/or osteoarthritis. Six of the patients had a positive comparative ballottement test, but none reported pain during the maneuver. No significant differences in RoM were found between the injured and uninjured wrist. Mean grip strength in the injured wrist was 77% of the contralateral value. Mean pain on VAS was 0.6. Mean global function on VAS was 9. Mean DASH score was 3. Dynamic CT showed no clear subluxation in any of the patients, and none showed severe articular changes. Our findings suggest that long-term clinical and radiological prognosis for the DRUJ in Galeazzi lesions is favorable when adequate closed reduction of the ulna is achieved after anatomical ORIF of the radius. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. Therapeutic case series.