Display options
Share it on

J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017 Nov;8:S21-S30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2016.12.006. Epub 2016 Dec 22.

Role of autologous non-vascularised intramedullary fibular strut graft in humeral shaft nonunions following failed plating.

Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma

Sreekanth Kashayi-Chowdojirao, Aashish Vallurupalli, Vijay Krishna Chilakamarri, Chandrasekhar Patnala, Lalith Mohan Chodavarapu, Nageswara Rao Kancherla, Asif Hussain Khazi Syed

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082, Telangana State, India.

PMID: 29339841 PMCID: PMC5761704 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2016.12.006

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-union humeral shaft fractures are seen frequently in clinical practice at about 2-10% in conservative management and 30% in surgically operated patients. Osteosynthesis using dynamic compression plate (DCP), intramedullary nailing, locking compression plate (LCP), Ilizarov technique along with bone grafting have been reported previously. In cases of prior failed plate-screw osteosynthesis the resultant osteopenia, cortical defect, bone loss, scalloping around screws and metallosis, make the management of non-union more complicated. Fibular graft as an intramedullary strut is useful in these conditions by increasing screw purchase, union and mechanical stability. This study is a retrospective and prospective follow up of revision plating along with autologous non-vascularised intramedullary fibular strut graft (ANVFG) for humeral non-unions following failed plate osteosynthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy eight cases of nonunion humeral shaft fractures were managed in our institute between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 57 cases were failed plate osteosynthesis, in which 15 cases were infected and 42 cases were noninfected. Out of the 78 cases, bone grafting was done in 55 cases. Fibular strut graft was used in 22 patients, of which 4 cases were of primary nonunion with osteoporotic bone. Applying the exclusion criteria of infection and inclusion criteria of failed plate osteosynthesis managed with revision plating using either LCP or DCP and ANVFG, 17 cases were studied. The mean age of the patients was 40.11 yrs (range: 26-57 yrs). The mean duration of non-union was 4.43 yrs (range: 0.5-14 yrs). The mean follow-up period was 33.41 months (range: 12-94 months). The average length of fibula was 10.7 cm (range: 6-15 cm). Main outcome measurements included bony union by radiographic assessment and pre- and postoperative functional evaluation using the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) score. Results: Sixteen out of 17 fractures united following revision plating and fibular strut grafting. Average time taken for union was 3.5 months (range: 3-5 months). Complications included one each of implant failure with bending, transient radial nerve palsy and transient ulnar nerve palsy. No case had infection, graft site morbidity or peroneal nerve palsy. Functional assessment by DASH score improved from 59.14 (range: 43.6-73.21) preoperatively to 23.39 (range: 8.03-34.2) postoperatively (p = 0.0003). Conclusion: The results of our study indicate that revision plating along with ANVFG is a reliable option in humeral diaphyseal non-unions with failed plate-screw osteosynthesis providing adequate screw purchase, mechanical stability and high chances of union with good functional outcome.

Keywords: Failed internal fixation; Fibular graft; Humeral shaft fracture; Nonunion humerus; Plate osteosynthesis

References

  1. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10 (7):492-9 - PubMed
  2. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Jul;(424):227-30 - PubMed
  3. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Jul;74(4):558-62 - PubMed
  4. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):804-7 - PubMed
  5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Mar;(204):162-8 - PubMed
  6. Orthop Clin North Am. 1987 Apr;18(2):249-56 - PubMed
  7. Injury. 2007 May;38 Suppl 2:S39-49 - PubMed
  8. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Jun;72 (5):701-7 - PubMed
  9. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Aug;84-A(8):1315-22 - PubMed
  10. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 May;(108):115-26 - PubMed
  11. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 Mar;72 (2):283-7 - PubMed
  12. J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Mar;21(3):178-84 - PubMed
  13. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Dec;61(8):1217-20 - PubMed
  14. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012 Dec;22(8):661-5 - PubMed
  15. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Jul;57(5):655-6 - PubMed
  16. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Feb;(419):46-50 - PubMed
  17. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Aug;(425):50-4 - PubMed
  18. Int Orthop. 2009 Aug;33(4):1009-14 - PubMed
  19. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2013 Dec;21(3):327-31 - PubMed
  20. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 May;(386):203-9 - PubMed
  21. Injury. 2001 Oct;32(8):621-4 - PubMed
  22. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Sep;98 (5):603-7 - PubMed
  23. Int Orthop. 2014 Apr;38(4):899-903 - PubMed
  24. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009 Aug;17(2):139-41 - PubMed
  25. Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8 - PubMed
  26. J Biomech. 1968 Dec;1(4):279-302 - PubMed
  27. Indian J Orthop. 2013 Mar;47(2):150-5 - PubMed
  28. J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Feb;27(2):77-81 - PubMed
  29. J Trauma. 1989 Jan;29(1):95-8 - PubMed
  30. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jul;88(7):1442-7 - PubMed
  31. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2011 Dec;19(3):341-5 - PubMed
  32. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Sep;82(7):977-83 - PubMed
  33. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jun;(219):206-13 - PubMed
  34. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004 Mar;124(2):92-5 - PubMed
  35. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Feb;74(1):95-7 - PubMed
  36. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975 May;55(5):533-44 - PubMed

Publication Types