Intramedullary Nailing Versus Compound Plate Osteosynthesis in Pathologic Diaphyseal Humerus Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Background and objectives: Pathologic fractures of the extremities due to carcinoma metastases require individual and patient prognosis-related stabilization procedures. Considering the anatomic features of the humerus, implant material stability is less critical than femoral fractures because of less weight-bearing stress. Therefore, operation length, blood loss, and quick recovery of function are of greater interest. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated and compared the outcomes of compound plate osteosynthesis and intramedullary (IM) nailing while managing diaphyseal pathologic fractures of the humerus.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients treated at our institution for pathologic fractures of the diaphyseal humerus between 2010 and 2021 for group differences (plate osteosynthesis vs. IM nailing) in terms of blood loss, length of operation, implant survival, and upper extremity function.

Results: We reviewed 42 stabilization procedures due to pathologic diaphyseal humerus fractures, with a mean follow-up of 8.5±15.4 months. IM nailing (n=20) showed a significantly lower blood loss (266.7±23.7 mL) than plate osteosynthesis (n=22, 571.1±92.6 mL). We did not detect statistically significant differences in the complication rate, length of operation, or Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score.

Conclusion: Our findings suggested that diaphyseal fractures of the humerus should be stabilized using an IM nail rather than plate osteosynthesis due to lower blood loss, while complication rate, implant survival, and length of operation remain indifferent.