Dataset Information

Radial nerve palsy associated with closed humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of 1758 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Humeral shaft fractures are often associated with radial nerve palsy (RNP) (8-16%). The primary aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence of primary and secondary RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to compare the recovery rate of primary RNP and the incidence of secondary RNP between operative and non-operative treatment.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in 'Trip Database', 'Embase' and 'PubMed' to identify original studies reporting on RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The Coleman Methodology Score was used to grade the quality of the studies. The incidence and recovery of RNP, fracture characteristics and treatment characteristics were extracted. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare operative versus non-operative treatment.

Results

Forty studies reporting on 1758 patients with closed humeral shaft fractures were included. The incidence of primary RNP was 10%. There was no difference in the recovery rate of primary RNP when comparing operative treatment with radial nerve exploration (98%) versus non-operative treatment (91%) (p = 0.29). The incidence of secondary RNP after operative and non-operative treatment was 4% and 0.4%, respectively (p < 0.01).

Interpretation

One-in-ten patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture has an associated primary RNP, of which > 90% recovers without the need of (re-)intervention. No beneficial effect of early exploration on the recovery of primary RNP could be demonstrated when comparing patients managed non-operatively with those explored early. Patients managed operatively for closed humeral shaft fractures have a higher risk of developing secondary RNP.

Level of evidence

Level IV; Systematic Review.

SUBMITTER: Hendrickx LAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7966639 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHumeral shaft fractures traditionally have been treated nonsurgically, but there has been a steady increase in the rate of surgery over the past 2 decades without high-quality evidence to justify the trend.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing in the treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland, enrollment between November 2012 and January 2018 with a final follow-up of January 2019. A total of 82 adult patients with closed, unilateral, displaced humeral shaft fracture met criteria for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had cognitive disabilities preventing them from following the protocol or had multimorbidity or multiple trauma.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation (n = 38) or to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing (n = 44).Main outcome and measureThe primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 12 months (range, 0 to 100 points, 0 denotes no disability and 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points).ResultsAmong 82 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48.9 years; 38 women [46%]; 44 men [54%]), 78 (95%) completed the trial. Thirteen (30%) of the patients assigned to functional bracing underwent surgery during the 12-month follow-up period to promote healing of the fracture. At 12 months, the mean DASH score was 8.9 (95% CI, 4.2 to 13.6) in the surgery group and 12.0 (95% CI, 7.7 to 16.4) in the bracing group (between-group difference, -3.1 points; 95% CI, -9.6 to 3.3; P = .34). Eleven patients (25%) allocated to functional bracing developed fracture nonunion. Three patients (8%) allocated to surgery developed a temporary radial nerve palsy.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with closed humeral shaft fracture, internal fixation surgery, compared with nonoperative functional bracing, did not significantly improve functional outcomes at 12 months. However, the substantial amount of treatment crossover from nonoperative to surgical treatment should be considered when interpreting the trial results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.

Project description:ContextAcute tibial shaft fractures represent one of the most severe injuries in sports. Return rates and return-to-sport times after these injuries are limited, particularly with regard to the outcomes of different treatment methods.ObjectiveTo determine the current evidence for the treatment of and return to sport after tibial shaft fractures.Data sourcesOVID/MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Collaboration Database, Web of Science, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Google Scholar were all searched for articles published from 1988 to 2014.Study selectionInclusion criteria comprised studies of level 1 to 4 evidence, written in the English language, that reported on the management and outcome of tibial shaft fractures and included data on either return-to-sport rate or time. Studies that failed to report on sporting outcomes, those of level 5 evidence, and those in non-English language were excluded.Study designSystematic review.Level of evidenceLevel 4.Data extractionThe search used combinations of the terms tibial, tibia, acute, fracture, athletes, sports, nonoperative, conservative, operative, and return to sport. Two authors independently reviewed the selected articles and created separate data sets, which were subsequently combined for final analysis.ResultsA total of 16 studies (10 retrospective, 3 prospective, 3 randomized controlled trials) were included (n = 889 patients). Seventy-six percent (672/889) of the patients were men, with a mean age of 27.7 years. Surgical management was assessed in 14 studies, and nonsurgical management was assessed in 8 studies. Return to sport ranged from 12 to 54 weeks after surgical intervention and from 28 to 182 weeks after nonsurgical management (mean difference, 69.5 weeks; 95% CI, -83.36 to -55.64; P < 0.01). Fractures treated surgically had a return-to-sport rate of 92%, whereas those treated nonsurgically had a return rate of 67% (risk ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.57; P < 0.01).ConclusionThe general principles are to undertake surgical management for displaced fractures and to attempt nonsurgical management for undisplaced fractures. Primary surgical intervention of undisplaced fractures, however, may result in higher return rates and shorter return times, though this exposes the patient to the risk of surgical complications, which include surgical site infection and compartment syndrome.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of systematic review and meta-analysis was to find out whether minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) is better than open reduction and internal plate fixation (ORIF) in terms of functional outcome, achieving union (union time and incidence of non-union), intraoperative parameters (surgical duration, blood loss, and radiation exposure), and complications (iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and infection) for humeral shaft fractures.Materials and methodsWe searched online databases (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library) from inception till 3rd September 2020 for articles comparing MIPO with ORIF for humeral shaft fractures. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was done by Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool 2 (RoB2) and of non-randomized studies (case-control and cohort studies) by Methodological Index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.Results11 studies (5 RCTs and 6 non-randomized comparative studies) involving a total of 582 patients (MIPO-290, ORIF-292) meeting our inclusion criteria were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled analysis of functional outcome scores between MIPO and ORIF. Union time was significantly lesser (mean difference = 3.12 weeks) and incidence of non-union lower (odd's ratio = 0.27) in MIPO group. Surgical duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly lesser in MIPO group. Iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and infection were higher in ORIF group.ConclusionsThis study showed that MIPO gives similar functional outcomes as compared to ORIF but causes significantly lesser blood loss, requires lesser operative duration and has a lesser incidence of major complications.Trial registrationInternational prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO)-CRD42020208346, Date of registration 09/10/2020.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00413-6.