The comparison of functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures: thermoplastic custom against preprepared commercial braces.

BACKGROUND: Functional humeral bracing of midshaft humeral fractures has been widely accepted as a gold standard for nonoperative treatment. Despite reported high union rates, there is no proven superiority of any orthosis. Here we aim to compare the outcomes after the use of custom-made thermoplastic vs. commercial humeral brace with regard to time to union, nonunion rates, types of nonunion, and conversion to surgery. METHODS: Patients with humeral fractures treated between 2018 and 2021 were identified retrospectively by electronic records. Only diaphyseal humerus fractures (AO 12) were included in the study. Proximal (AO 11) or distal (AO 13) fractures, open fractures, pathologic fractures, bilateral fractures, multiple fractures, and patients lost to follow-up were excluded. Patients attending one center received a custom-made thermoplastic splint, whereas those at the other center had an off-the-shelf humeral brace applied. Radiologic union was defined as healing of at least 3 of 4 cortices determined from follow-up radiographs. Data calculations were performed using the χ2 test. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients treated with a thermoplastic brace and 43 with a commercial brace were identified. A total of 52 men were included, and the cohort's mean age was 60.1 years (standard deviation: 16.1 years). Both groups had similar gender and age distributions. More patients achieved union with a thermoplastic brace (79.2%) than those with a commercial brace (76.7%), which was statistically significant (χ2, P = .04). Although time to union was similar both clinically and radiologically, patients with a commercial brace converted to surgical treatment more frequently (11 vs. 14 cases). CONCLUSION: Thermoplastic custom-made braces provide better fracture stability, allowing for statistically significantly higher rates of fracture union during a similar treatment period to commercially available splints. Patients wearing a commercial splint were significantly more likely to develop hypertrophic nonunion requiring surgery.

Segmental Pelvic Correlation (SPeC): a novel approach to understanding sagittal plane spinal alignment.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar lordosis (LL) correlates with pelvic morphology, and it has been demonstrated that as LL increases, the inflection point and apex of lordosis move cranially. This suggests that each segment of the lumbar spine relates to pelvic morphology in a unique way. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish whether there is a direct relationship between pelvic morphology and lumbar segmental angulation in the sagittal plane. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of 41 patient radiographs was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Inclusion criteria included patients with full length standing anterioposterior and lateral radiographs of the spine from base of occiput to proximal femora, with clearly visible vertebral end plates from T12 to S1 and a thoracic kyphosis (TK) and LL within the normal range. Patients were excluded if they had a coronal spinal deformity affecting the lumbar spine, chronic back pain, spondylolisthesis, spondylolysis, congenital scoliosis, or skeletal dysplasia. OUTCOME MEASURES: Spinopelvic radiographic parameters of pelvic incidence (PI), LL, TK, and segmental angulation at each level from L1 to the sacrum were the outcome measures. METHODS: Forty-one lateral whole spine radiographs with normal sagittal profiles from the spinal deformity clinic were retrospectively reviewed. Pelvic incidence, LL, TK, and segmental angulation at each level from L1 to the sacrum were measured (from end plate to end plate), distinguishing the vertebral body and intervertebral disc contribution. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to analyze any relationship between pelvic parameters and segmental angulation. RESULTS: A strong correlation was found between PI and LL. Pelvic incidence correlated strongly with the L1 and L2 motion segments (p=.0001, p=.03), notably at the intervertebral discs but not the L4 and L5 motion segments. The proportion of total LL contributed at L4-L5 and L5-S1 reduced as PI increased. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic incidence can predict segmental angulation. Although the majority of LL is produced at the L4 and L5 motion segments, cephalad lumbar segments sequentially become increasingly important as PI increases. This describes a continuum where the L1 and L2 motion segments crucially fine-tune total LL according to PI. This allows segmental abnormalities to be identified when compensation in adjacent segments maintain normal total LL. It also paves the way for anatomical segmental reconstruction in degenerative adult deformity based on pelvic morphology.