• Ashutosh Kumar Singh, G R Arun, Nidhi Narsaria, and Anurag Srivastava.
• Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Barabanki, India.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Jul 1;134(7):947-53.

BackgroundThe aim of this prospective comparative study was to compare outcomes and complications of humeral diaphyseal fracture non-unions managed with humerus interlocking nail (HIL) and locking compression plate (LCP).Materials And Methods40 patients with non-union of humeral diaphyseal fractures were included in this study and were randomly allocated in two groups; group A had 20 cases treated with HIL and group B had 20 cases treated with LCP. Clinico-radiological assessments were done for each case up to 2-year follow-up period. Primary outcome measures (time to fracture union, union rate) and secondary outcome measures (functional outcome and complication such as infection, malunion, delayed union, implant failure, joint stiffness and iatrogenic radial nerve palsy) were compared between both the groups. Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scoring and Steward and Hundley's scoring system were used to assess functional outcome of the fracture fixation.ResultsThere was no significant difference (p = 0.12) in terms of mean fracture union time between group A (15.8 ± 4.2 weeks) and group B (17.2 ± 3.8 weeks). Group A had 95 % union rate and group B had 100 % union rate (p = 0.14). At the 2-year follow-up visit, there was no significant difference found between both the groups regarding range of motion of shoulder and elbow joint. There was no significant difference found in final functional outcomes between both the groups on comparing DASH score (p = 0.14) and Steward and Hundley's score (p = 0.08). In terms of complications, there was insignificant difference found between both the groups.ConclusionsThis study concludes that both the implants can be used in non-union of humeral shaft fractures with good functional outcomes and acceptable rate of complications.

29 keywords...

hide…