Displaced humeral shaft fracture: Plating versus intramedullary nailing- A prospective cohort study

Teimouri, Mehdi; Tahririan, Mohammad Ali; Izadi, Mehdi; Lalehzar, Sahar Sadat; Emami, Mohammad Mahdi; Asadi, Sayyed Yazdan

doi:10.48307/atr.2025.546788.1274

Displaced humeral shaft fracture: Plating versus intramedullary nailing- A prospective cohort study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mehdi Teimouri ¹

Mohammad Ali Tahririan ¹

Mehdi Izadi ¹

Sahar Sadat Lalehzar ¹

Mohammad Mahdi Emami ²

Sayyed Yazdan Asadi ¹

¹ Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

² School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

10.48307/atr.2025.546788.1274

Abstract

Background: Displaced humeral shaft fractures are among the most frequent long-bone fractures that often require surgical fixation. However, the optimal surgical method remains controversial.
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plating versus intramedullary nailing (IMN).
Methods: This prospective cohort study included patients undergoing surgery for displaced humeral shaft fractures at Kashani Hospital, Isfahan, Iran, between 2020 and 2022. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Patients were evaluated postoperatively using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Constant-Murley Score, the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI), and union time. Complication rates and surgical duration were also recorded.
Results: Of 85 patients, 43 received plating and 42 underwent nailing. The plating group had higher rates of infection (superficial: 21.4%, deep: 9.5%) and nerve damage (23%) compared to the nailing group (0% and 3%, respectively). Reoperation was required in 9% of plating cases compared to 3% in the nailing group. Shoulder impingement occurred only in the nailing group (33%). The nailing group had a shorter operative time (63.8 ± 8.3 min vs. 94.1 ± 11.2 min) and a faster fracture union (15.3 ± 2.2 weeks vs. 18.8 ± 2.1 weeks). Functional and pain scores showed statistically significant differences, favoring nailing in terms of MEPI, while favoring plating in terms of the Constant-Murley score.
Conclusions: Both ORIF with plating and IMN achieved satisfactory outcomes. However, intramedullary nailing may be preferable in patients at high risk of nonunion due to faster recovery and lower complication rates.

Keywords

Humeral shaft fracture

Plating

Intramedullary nailing

Fracture union

Functional outcomes

1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691-7. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130 PMid:16814787

2. Brinker MR, O'Connor DP. The incidence of fractures and dislocations referred for orthopaedic services in a capitated population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(2):290-7. doi:10.2106/00004623-200402000-00011 PMid:14960673

3. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, Mellstrom D. Epidemiology of osteoporosis and fracture in men. Calcif Tissue Int. 2004;75(2):90-9. doi:10.1007/s00223-004-0287-6 PMid:15185058

4. Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus: an epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(11):1469-73. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17634 PMid:17075092

5. Kim SH, Szabo RM, Marder RA. Epidemiology of humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide emergency department sample, 2008. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(3):407-14. doi:10.1002/acr.21563 PMid:22162357

6. Rebollo MA, Garcia DV, Aguilella AJ, Glickman S. Review of humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2001;45(1):10-6.

7. Lin J, Hou SM. Locked nailing of severely comminuted or segmental humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 May;(410):196-204. doi:10.1097/00003086-200301000-00029

8. Rommens PM. Is there a place for external fixation in humeral shaft fractures? Injury. 2000; Suppl 1:27-34. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(99)00260-0 PMid:10717271

9. Chanmugam N, Joukainen A, Kesanen J. Comparison of the use of humeral intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate for the management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. A randomized controlled study. Int Orthop. 2007;31(3):391-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0200-1 PMid:16900354 PMCid:PMC2267584

10. Chapman JR, Henley MB, Agel J, Benca PJ. Randomized prospective study of humeral shaft fracture fixation: intramedullary nails versus plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14(3):162-6. doi:10.1097/00005131-200003000-00002 PMid:10791665

11. McCormack RG, Brien D, Buckley RE, McKee MD, Powell J, Schemitsch EH. Fixation of fractures of the shaft of the humerus by dynamic compression plate or intramedullary nail. A prospective, randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82(3):336-9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.82B3.0820336

12. Mahabier KC, Den Hartog D, Theyskens N, Verhofstad MHJ, Van Lieshout EMM, Bos PK, et al. Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Constant-Murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.07.072 PMid:27745806

13. Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ. An evaluation of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):229-32. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.78B2.0780229

14. Ziegler P, Kuhle L, Stockle U, Wintermeyer E, Stollhof LE, Ihle C, et al. Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):603. doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2795-6 PMid:31484528 PMCid:PMC6727481

15. Hirschmann MT, Wind B, Amsler F, Gross T. Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the Constant-Murley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1565-71. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1007-3 PMid:19639370 PMCid:PMC2865615

16. Romeo AA, Mazzocca AD, Hang DW, Shott S, Bach BR Jr. Shoulder scoring scales for the evaluation of rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(427):107-14. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000142624.05526.dd PMid:15552145

17. Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S174-88. doi:10.1002/acr.20630 PMid:22588743

18. Hirschmann MT, Wind B, Amsler F, Gross T. Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the Constant-Murley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1565-71. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1007-3 PMid:19639370 PMCid:PMC2865615

19. Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Feb;80(2):154-62. doi:10.2106/00004623-199802000-00002 PMid:9486721

20. Longo UG, Franceschi F, Loppini M, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull. 2008;87(1):131-61. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldn023

21. Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(2):154-62. doi:10.2106/00004623-199802000-00002 PMid:9486721

22. Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1991. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61261-9

23. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 Suppl):S1-133. doi:10.1097/00005131-200711101-00001 PMid:18277234

24. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Dec;8(12):1153-7. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x PMid:11733293

25. Saroj DK, Nagaich A, Gupta P. Comparative study of results of ORIF with plating vs. CRIF with nailing in fracture midshaft humerus. Int J Orthop. 2020;6(1):1-4. doi:10.22271/ortho.2020.v6.i1a.1822

26. Beeres FJP, van Veelen N, Houwert RM, Link BC, Heng M, Knobe M, et al. Open plate fixation versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(2):919-31. doi:10.1007/s00068-022-01943-w PMid:35274152

27. Wang Y, Zhao CF, Chen K, Zhang YZ. Comparison between osteosynthesis with interlocking nail and minimally invasive plating for proximal- and middle-thirds of humeral shaft fractures. Int Orthop. 2021;45(8):2093-102. doi:10.1007/s00264-020-04869-3 PMid:33184684

28. Wen H, Zhu S, Li C, Chen Z, Yang H, Xu Y. Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: an update meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(46):e17952. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000017952 PMid:31725653 PMCid:PMC6867742

29. Chandan RK, Sinha V, Bhushan D. Comparison of results between dynamic compression plate and interlocking nail for the management of fracture shaft of humerus. Int J Orthop. 2020;6(1):249-52. doi:10.22271/ortho.2020.v6.i1e.1867