Percutaneous helical plate fixation in humeral shaft fractures with proximal extension.

BACKGROUND: Humeral shaft fractures with extension to the proximal third are increasingly frequent and technically more demanding. Surgical management of proximal metaphyseal junction humeral fractures is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the safety, reproducibility, and possibility of early and completed rehabilitation in the percutaneous treatment with helical plates in humeral shaft fractures with proximal extension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive, retrospective, single-centre cohort study based on consecutive patients with proximal metaphyseal junction humeral fractures (MIPO-helical-plate-Broggi's cohort). Surgical technique (minimally invasive approach and osteosynthesis): percutaneous treatment with a twisted plate (helical plates). STUDY VARIABLES: i): Intraoperative and postoperative (up to 1 year after surgery) safety; ii) Reproducibility of the surgical technique [number (percentage) of patients with surgical technique success]. The surgical technique success was defined as the recovering without neurovascular, implant failures and infection issues after one year follow up; and iii) Early and completed (3 months) rehabilitation [number (percentage) of patients]. A descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Between April 2010 to January 2022, we received 443 humeral shaft fractures at our unit. Of these, 350 fractures were treated surgically. 157 (44.9%) were treated using the minimally invasive approach and osteosynthesis technique with extramedullary implants, of which 46 (46/157, 29.3%, 9 men and 37 women) were performed with almost orthogonally twisted Philos® helical plates. The median (range) age was 67 (51-94) years. STUDY OUTCOMES: i) Safety: None intraoperative events were gathered. No neurovascular, implant failure and infection issues were reported one year after surgery.; ii) Reproducibility of the surgical technique: only 1 failure (2%, 95%CI:0-11%), who was reoperated; and iii) Early and 3 month of rehabilitation was completed in 45 (98%, 95%CI:89-100%) patients. Forty-five (98%, 95%CI:89-100%) patients recovered their previous function the year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of humeral shaft fractures with proximal extension based on a minimally invasive approach and osteosynthesis: percutaneous treatment with a twisted plate (helical plates), as this is a submuscular and extraperiosteal technique, is a safe and reproducible technique, and promotes early rehabilitation. In our opinion, it is surgical technique whose main requirement is a good knowledge of topographic anatomy.

A pilot agreement study of a new classification system for Peri-implant femoral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implant fractures occur in association with an implant, used to treat a previous injury that is still attached to the bone. We recently published a proposal for a classification system for peri-implant femoral fractures [Videla-Cés, Injury,2019]. AIM: To assess the agreement of our classification system for peri-implant femoral fractures among a group of future users of said classification system. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, international agreement pilot study was conducted among a group of independent traumatologists/orthopaedic surgeons (evaluators): senior (a minimum of 10 years' experience) and junior (in fourth or fifth training year). A set of 30 radiographs of peri-implant femoral fractures were selected (stratified into 3 levels of difficulty: low, medium and high). Each evaluator interpreted the radiographs on 2 different occasions separated by a period of one month and in a different order each time. The level of difficulty was masked from the evaluators and they had one week to classify the radiographs each time. Logistic regression and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were used to assess the accuracy and agreement, both intra- and inter-evaluator. Between senior and junior surgeons was performed an exploratory analysis. RESULTS: 35 traumatologists/orthopaedic surgeons (17 senior and 18 junior) from 16 tertiary hospitals from 4 countries acted as evaluators. The accuracy, percentage of correct classifications (2 digits and 3 letters), in the first and second evaluation was: 56% (95%CI: 53-59%) and 55% (95%CI: 51-57%), respectively. (insert space) Negligible differences were found between junior and senior evaluators (first evaluation, OR: 1.46, 95%CI: 0.82-2.61, p-value: 0.199; second evaluation, OR: 1.06, 95%CI: 0.56-2.00, p-value: 0.860). (insert space) Both medium and low radiograph difficulty were associated with a lower probability of an incorrect classification compared with those of high difficulty (first evaluation, OR: 7.60, 95%CI: 5.24-11.05, p-value: <0.001; OR: 14.15, 95%CI: 9.12-21.96, p-value: <0.001, respectively; second evaluation, OR: 7.11, 95%CI: 4.88-10.38, p-value: <0.001, OR: 15.28, 95%CI: 9.77-23.89, p-value: <0.001). (insert space) The kappa for intra-observer agreement between the first and second evaluation was: 0.66, 95%CI: 0.63, 0.69. The kappa for inter-observer agreement considering all 30 radiographs was: 0.40, 95%CI: 0.40, 0.41 in the first evaluation and 0.39, 95%CI: 0.39, 0.40 in the second evaluation. CONCLUSION: The proposed classification for peri-implant femoral fractures may be useful and user-friendly. Future studies are needed to assess the how clinically useful this classification system may be (the third phase in the validation process).

Proposal for the classification of peri-implant femoral fractures: Retrospective cohort study.

Background Peri-implant fractures occur in association with an implant used to treat a previous injury and that is still attached to the bone. Peri-implant fractures are considered to be relatively "new" fractures and they lack any classification system that is accepted in practice. Generally, the fracture classification systems currently used in our clinical practice were not developed or validated using rigorous scientific evaluation methods. Aim To provide data for a proposed classification of peri-implant femoral fractures. Methods This is an international and multicentre study (12 centres) based on a cohort of consecutive peri-implant fractures with the criterion being: a fracture in any segment of the femur in association with previously-used osteosynthesis material, whether a nail, plate or screws. A proposed system for the classification was tested, based on a topographical classification using alphanumeric coding, following a similar nomenclature to that explained in the "Vancouver-Classification-for-Total-Hip-Arthroplasty-Periprosthetic-Fractures", and classified according to whether the implant is a nail, a screw or a plate, and the location of the fracture in relation to the original implant and the affected femoral segment. The study coordinator performed the first classification exercise, which was discussed subsequently for the study coordinator group to reach a consensus. A descriptive analysis of the fractures was produced. The proportion of peri-implant femoral fractures was estimated, and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was calculated. Results Between January 2013 and December 2016, data on a total of 143 peri-implant femoral fractures were collected. Only 5 (3.5%) fractures had to be discussed to reach a consensus. The most common peri-implant femoral fractures were located at the diaphyseal segment (#32) and associated with nails or plates: 51%, 73/143, 95%CI:43-59%; at the proximal segment (#31): 39%, 56/143, 95%CI:32-47%; and at the distal femoral segment (#33): 10%, 14/143, 95%CI:6-16%. The highest proportion of peri-implant femoral fractures corresponded to #31-AN (trochanteric and neck area) and #32-CNP (diaphysis fractures distant from the implant, often distal and spiral). Conclusion The proposed classification for peri-implant femoral fractures appears to be useful and easy to accomplish. Future studies will be necessary to validate it and demonstrate the effectiveness of its application in clinical practice.