Proximal Humeral Fractures: More Data on Nonunion Risk
Proximal humeral fractures tend to occur in a bimodal distribution, namely, in younger, primarily male patients and in older (>65 years of age), primarily female patients. In the latter population, such fractures are often related to low bone density, and we in the orthopaedic community now recognize the imperative to evaluate at-risk individuals through measures such as DXA scanning and laboratory assessments of bone health in order to institute appropriate monitoring and pharmacotherapy.
Regarding the treatment of these fractures, several large trials have demonstrated that, for select fracture patterns, nonsurgical care results in clinical and functional outcomes that are equal to or better than surgical care with open reduction and internal fixation or arthroplasty. The question for treating clinicians is: are there proximal humeral fracture patterns that have higher rates of complications (chiefly nonunion) following nonsurgical care?
In a retrospective study reported in JBJS, Goudie and Robinson evaluated the rate of nonunion among patients who were treated nonoperatively for a proximal humeral fracture at their regional trauma center in the UK. They also sought to develop and validate a prediction model to assess nonunion risk, measuring the effect of 19 patient demographic and radiographic variables on healing.
Overall, 231 (10.4%) of the 2,230 included patients experienced nonunion. Among those with valgus angulation of the humeral head (395 patients), the nonunion prevalence was <1%, and none of the other variables evaluated were associated with increased risk of nonunion in a multivariable analysis. However, among the 1,835 patients with neutral or varus angulation of the head, the prevalence of nonunion was 12.4%, and decreasing head-shaft angle, increasing head-shaft translation, and smoking were independently predictive of nonunion.
Important to note is the residual pain and diminished function that often accompanies nonunion. Still, the authors rightly point out that “surgery aimed solely at preventing nonunion exposes patients to the risk of other complications that are not encountered with nonoperative treatment.” But, based on these findings about fracture morphology, they conclude that “medically fit patients with translated and/or angulated fractures should be counseled about smoking cessation and considered for surgery to avoid the debilitating effects of subsequent nonunion.” Patients with these fracture characteristics deserve closer scrutiny in our efforts to provide the best treatment for proximal humeral fractures.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief
Click here for a JBJS Clinical Summary on proximal humeral fractures.
A Rare Innovation in Pediatric Orthopaedics
True innovation—improvement way beyond the incremental—is rare in orthopaedics, whether it’s pre- and postoperative management, surgical technique, or prosthetic design. Innovation is even rarer, understandably, in addressing conditions that themselves are rare. Rarer still are innovations in treating pediatric conditions because of the many different congenital etiologies that don’t present in sufficient numbers to meaningfully study interventions.
Congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia is one such rare pediatric condition, and it is one of the most challenging problems facing pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. In its pre-fracture state, this condition is called congenital tibial dysplasia or anterolateral bowing of the tibia. The goal of treatment at this stage is preventing fracture in the dysplastic, bowed area, because post-fracture union is difficult to achieve and maintain—and because chronic nonunion puts patients at risk for long-term pain, deformity, and disability.
In the December 2, 2020 issue of The Journal, Laine et al. present results of a simple outpatient surgical solution to this problem in 10 pediatric patients who were followed for an average of 5 years. Using a limited-exposure, plate-and-screw approach to control physeal growth, these authors produced correction in tibial alignment in all 10 patients. Most importantly, no patient developed a tibial fracture or pseudarthrosis after the guided-growth procedure, which also improved radiographic appearance of dysplastic bone and preserved leg length. Although 6 of the 10 patients required a plate exchange, the authors’ institution now offers this procedure as first-line treatment to all patients presenting with pre-fracture congenital tibial dysplasia.
Congenital bowing of the tibia is a condition that will probably never be subject to a controlled clinical trial due to the (fortunately) low number of patients affected. However, carefully conducted small cohort studies such as this can reveal true innovation that advances care for small but very vulnerable populations.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief
What’s New in Limb Lengthening and Deformity Correction 2020
Every month, JBJS delivers a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of all OrthoBuzz specialty-update summaries.
This month, Andrew G. Georgiadis, MD, co-author of the August 19, 2020 “What’s New in Limb Lengthening and Deformity Correction,” selected the five most clinically compelling findings from among the more than 50 noteworthy studies summarized in the article.
Congenital Limb Deficiencies
–A study of 42 children with severe fibular hemimelia found that levels of psychosocial adjustment and health-related quality of life were comparable among those who underwent staged reconstruction and those who underwent amputation, at a minimum of 2 years after treatment.
Congenital Dysplasia
–A study evaluating long-term outcomes of 34 patients who were treated with the Charnley-Williams procedure for congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia found high rates of refracture after initial union, and that failure to operate on the fibula at the time of index surgery resulted in poor outcomes. On a more positive note, 10 of the 13 refractures healed upon retreatment.
Trauma
–A series of 14 patients with aseptic nonunion of the femur or tibia underwent long-bone compression with magnetic lengthening nails programmed “in reverse.”1 The nails shortened by 6.7 mm and the bones shortened by an average of 3.1 mm. Union was achieved in 13 of 14 cases.
Limb Lengthening
–In a study comparing motorized internal lengthening with external fixation for humeral lengthening,2 ultimate lengthening parameters were comparable, but motorized lengthening mitigated pin-site complications and allowed for reuse of the implant.
Pin-Site Management
–A randomized trial of 114 patients with external fixators concluded that there is no role for antiseptic preparations in routine pin care.3 Neither the antiseptic preparation used nor daily dressing changes affected the pin-site infection rate.
References
- Fragomen AT, Wellman D, Rozbruch SR. The PRECICE magnetic IM compression nail for long bone nonunions: a preliminary report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Nov;139(11):1551-60. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
- Morrison SG, Georgiadis AG, Dahl MT. Lengthening of the humerus using a motorized lengthening nail: a retrospective comparative series. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019 Sep 23. Epub 2019 Sep 23.
- Subramanyam KN, Mundargi AV, Potarlanka R, Khanchandani P. No role for antiseptics in routine pin site care in Ilizarov fixators: a randomised prospective single blinded control study. Injury. 2019 Mar;50(3):770-6. Epub 2019 Jan 23.
Negative Findings from Level-I Trial Still a Step Forward
Donor-site morbidity from harvesting autologous bone graft has driven the decades-long search for a substitute that performs at least as well as a patient’s own bone. Much of the clinical research on donor-site morbidity is flawed by detection bias, but other factors such as operating-room time and expense are still driving the search for the ideal substitute for autologous bone. Still, the discovery of an ideal bone-graft substitute continues to be elusive.
In The November 6, 2019 issue of The Journal, Myerson et al. report findings from a Level-I trial that investigated the use of adipose-derived cellular bone matrix (ACBM) as a graft substitute in patients undergoing subtalar arthrodesis. Among 57 patients who received autograft and 52 who received ACBM, the substitute delivered lower fusion rates as determined by both CT and plain radiographic/clinical evaluations at 6 months. In addition, patients treated with autologous bone graft had lower rates of serious adverse events.
I commend the authors and funders (AlloSource) of this well-designed clinical trial for reporting these negative results, because it is often just as important to know what doesn’t work as what does. (This manuscript was submitted even after AlloSource decided to halt further production of its ACBM product in 2017.) Such transparent reporting saves other investigators and graft substitute-focused companies from going down similar avenues of investigation. Perhaps even more importantly, publishing negative results such as this might save patients from undergoing procedures with similar formulations that would probably have minimal chance of helping and could do harm.
By contributing to the scientific “process of elimination,” this study brings us one step closer to the identification of a worthy substitute for autologous bone graft.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief
Clavicle Fracture Research: Enough Already?
Orthopaedic surgeons and their staffs are aware of the paradigm shift that has taken place in the last 10 to 15 years regarding the treatment of clavicle fractures. Interest in the outcome differences between surgical and nonsurgical treatment has grown substantially since the 2007 Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society publication in JBJS showed that, relative to nonoperative treatment, plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures resulted in improved functional outcomes and fewer malunions in active adult patients. Since that time, The Journal alone has published 14 articles related to management of clavicle fractures. In addition, the orthopaedic literature contains a number of well-conducted meta-analyses on the topic, comparing both nonoperative and surgical treatment as well as different methods of surgical fixation.
So, with all this evidence, why have we published the randomized controlled trial on this topic by King et al. in the April 3, 2019 issue of The Journal? Partly because the authors build upon our knowledge by comparing a relatively new fixation device (a flexible intramedullary locked nail) to a more standard treatment (an anatomically contoured plate). These plate and nail devices are very different from one another in terms of mechanics and surgical technique, and the flexible nail used in this study is much different than the rigid, straight nails or pins that have been used in the past.
A union rate of 100% was observed in both groups, but the authors found that the flexible nail was significantly faster in terms of operative time. (A single surgeon experienced with both devices performed all 72 surgeries.) They also found that the DASH scores between the groups were similar until the 12 month follow-up, at which point the flexible intramedullary nail group had statistically better scores. The authors concede, however, that the 12-month DASH-score difference “might not be clinically relevant.”
There is one other reason why we deemed this article important: The flexible intramedullary device used in this study is substantially more expensive than prior fixation devices that have been shown to effectively treat clavicular fractures. King et al. did not compare device costs, but whenever we study a device that adds to the total cost of care we should attempt to prove that it adds enough patient benefit to warrant the added expense. As the authors conclude, both devices evaluated in this study appear to be effective at treating displaced/shortened clavicular fractures, and there are a number of other factors that both the surgeon and patient should consider (such as surgeon skill and experience and cosmetic results) when deciding which treatment to use.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief
JBJS 100: Shoulder Impingement and Distraction Osteogenesis
Under one name or another, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery has published quality orthopaedic content spanning three centuries. In 1919, our publication was called the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, and the first volume of that journal was Volume 1 of what we know today as JBJS.
Thus, the 24 issues we turn out in 2018 will constitute our 100th volume. To help celebrate this milestone, throughout the year we will be spotlighting 100 of the most influential JBJS articles on OrthoBuzz, making the original content openly accessible for a limited time.
Unlike the scientific rigor of Journal content, the selection of this list was not entirely scientific. About half we picked from “JBJS Classics,” which were chosen previously by current and past JBJS Editors-in-Chief and Deputy Editors. We also selected JBJS articles that have been cited more than 1,000 times in other publications, according to Google Scholar search results. Finally, we considered “activity” on the Web of Science and The Journal’s websites.
We hope you enjoy and benefit from reading these groundbreaking articles from JBJS, as we mark our 100th volume. Here are two more:
Anterior Acromioplasty for Chronic Impingement Syndrome in the Shoulder
C S Neer: JBJS, 1972 January; 54 (1): 41
For many years after its publication, this 1972 JBJS article changed the treatment approach for patients with shoulder disability. But more recently, arthroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging arthrography have identified other painful non-impingement shoulder conditions. Consequently, the liberal use of acromioplasty to treat “impingement” is being replaced by a trend toward making an anatomic diagnosis, such as a partial or complete rotator cuff tear, and performing aggressive rehabilitation prior to corrective surgery.
Use of the Ilizarov Technique for Treatment of Non-union of the Tibia Associated with Infection
G K Dendrinos, S Kontos, E Lyritsis: JBJS, 1995 June; 77 (6): 835
This case series described a technique of bone transport with bridging achieved by distraction osteogenesis. The defects averaged 6 cm, the mean duration of treatment was 10 months, and the mean time to union was 6 months. More recent research has focused on augmenting the osteogenic potential of tissues in the distraction gap with substances such as bone morphogenetic protein, platelet-rich plasma, and mesenchymal stem cells.
More Clinical Data on the “Clavicle Question”
The last time OrthoBuzz reported on a JBJS randomized trial looking at treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures, the authors concluded that “neither treatment option [nonoperative or surgical] is clearly superior for all patients” and that “the clavicular fracture is preeminently suitable for shared treatment decision-making.”
Now, a multicenter randomized trial by Ahrens et al. published in the August 16, 2017 JBJS adds more data for that shared decision-making discussion. In this trial, 300 patients with a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture were randomized to receive either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a plate or nonoperative management. Patients were recruited from a range of UK hospitals, and a single implant and standardized technique were used in the operative group. The rehabilitation protocol was the same for both groups.
The union rate in both groups at 3 months was low, approximately 70%. But at 9 months after the injury, the nonunion rate was <1% in the surgically treated patients, compared to 11% in the nonsurgically treated patients. The patient-reported scores (DASH and Constant-Murley) were significantly better in the operative group at 6 weeks and 3 months, but were equivalent to those in the nonoperative group at 9 months.
“Overall,” the authors conclude, “we think that surgical treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture should be offered to patients, and [these findings] can provide clear, robust data to help patients make their choices.”
Atypical Femoral Fractures: Predicting Post-surgical Healing Problems
Orthopaedic journals and OrthoBuzz have devoted ample space to the apparent association between long-term bisphosphonate use and atypical femoral fractures. The latest insight into this relationship comes from Lim et al. in the December 7, 2016 edition of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. The authors analyzed factors associated with delayed union or nonunion after surgical treatment of 109 atypical femoral fractures in patients who had an average 7.4-year history of bisphosphonate use.
Here’s what Lim et al. found among the 30% of patients studied who had delayed union or nonunion, relative to the 70% who had successful healing:
- Patient Factors: Patients who had problematic fracture healing had a higher BMI, longer duration of bisphosphonate exposure, and higher rate of prodromal symptoms.
- Radiographic/Fracture Factors: Supra-isthmic/subtrochanteric fracture location, femoral bowing of ≥10° in the coronal plane, and a lateral/medial cortical thickness ratio of ≥1.4 were predictive of problematic healing.
- Operative Factors: Iatrogenic cortical breakage around the fracture site and a ratio of ≥0.2 between the remaining gap and the cortical thickness on the anterior and lateral sides of the fracture site were associated with problematic fracture healing.
In an accompanying commentary on the study, Edward J. Harvey, MD notes that most trauma surgeons use cephalomedullary nails to treat atypical femoral fractures, but that “it is impossible from this manuscript to determine what effect the fixation technique had on the outcomes.” He therefore recommends a larger multicenter study using standardized therapy and bone biopsies to further improve understanding in this area.
JBJS Editor’s Choice—Nonunions of Foot/Ankle Fusions Matter
In the December 7, 2016 issue of JBJS, Krause et al. analyze data from a 2013 industry-sponsored RCT to investigate correlations between nonunions of hindfoot/ankle fusions indicated by early postoperative computed tomography (CT) and subsequent functional outcomes. Whether nonunion was assessed by independent readings of those CT scans at 24 weeks or by surgeon composite assessments at 52 weeks, patients with failed healing had lower AOFAS, SF-12, and Foot Function Index scores than those who showed osseous union.
This study suggests that a CT should be obtained from patients who are at least 6 months out from a surgical fusion and are not progressing in terms of activity-related pain and function. Depending on the specific CT findings, a repeat attempt at bone grafting, with the possible addition of bone-graft substitute and/or possible modification of internal fixation, may be warranted to forestall later clinical problems.
Krause et al. imply that trusting plain radiographs that show no indication of fusion failure is not acceptable when patient pain and function do not improve in a timely fashion. Conversely, they conclude that their findings do not support “the concept of an asymptomatic nonunion (i.e., imaging indicating nonunion but the patient doing well),” because nonunions identified early by CT eventually resulted in worse clinical outcomes. The authors also noted that obesity, smoking, and not working increased the risk of nonunion, corroborating findings from earlier studies.
While advanced imaging such as CT is not necessary in foot/ankle fusion patients who are improving in terms of function, pain, and swelling , this study stresses the importance of achieving union following these fusion procedures.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief
JBJS Classics: The Küntscher Method of IM Fixation
OrthoBuzz regularly brings you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation about these classics by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.
In 1957 Gerhard Küntscher presented his work on intramedullary (IM) nailing to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. His classic JBJS paper on the subject, published in January 1958, summarized his views on this comparatively new technique and encouraged other surgeons to use it for the treatment of long bone fractures and nonunions.
Küntscher pointed out that callus was very sensitive to mechanical stresses, and therefore any treatment method should aim at complete immobilization of the fracture fragments throughout the healing process. External splints, such as plaster casts, did not achieve that, and “inner splints” fixed to the outside of the bone damaged the periosteum.
In advocating for intramedullary fixation, Küntscher was careful to distinguish nails from pins. He was very complimentary about J. and L. Rush, who developed intramedullary pinning, but he pointed out that, unlike pins, nails allowed both longitudinal elasticity and cross-sectional compressibility if they were designed with a V-profile or clover-leaf cross section. This cross-sectional elasticity allowed the nail to fit the canal and expand during bone resorption.
Not only did Küntscher appreciate the biomechanics of the intramedullary nail, but he also pointed out the physical and psychological advantages of early mobilization, particularly in the elderly. He also emphasized that massage was unnecessary—and potentially harmful—during the recovery phase, claiming that any measures that make patients more conscious of their injuries are psychologically disadvantageous.
Küntscher used intramedullary nailing to treat fractures, nonunions, and osteotomies of the femur, tibia, humerus, and forearm. He accepted that it was “a most daring” approach that would destroy the nutrient artery, but he pointed out that proper nailing almost always prevented pseudarthoses and that antibiotics had checked the threat of infection. He said further that perioperative x-rays entailed short exposures and that the “electronic fluoroscope” had, even back then, practically eliminated the risk of x-ray injury to assistants.
The paper clearly illustrates Küntscher’s widespread knowledge and innovative skills. However, it was the subsequent development of locked nails that resulted in intramedullary nailing becoming the treatment of choice for femoral and tibial fractures. Time will tell if modern orthopaedic surgeons will catch up with Küntscher and use nailing for humeral and forearm diaphyseal fractures.
Charles M Court-Brown, MD, FRCSCEd
JBJS Deputy Editor
Try Clinical Classroom
Recent Comments