Upper limb trauma Flashcards
Scapula Fracture
i. Incidence / Mechanism
ii. Mortality rate + cause(s)
iii. ____% involve body and spine
i. uncommon / <1% all fractures / high energy trauma
ii. 2-5% (usually from Pulmonary OR Neurological injury)
iii. 50%
Scapula Fracture
i. Associated injuries occur in __to___%
ii. Types of assoc injuries (orthopaedic)
i. 80-90%
ii. Types of assoc injuries (ortho):
1. rib fractures (52%); 2. ipsilateral clavicle fracture (25%); 3. Spine fracture (29%)
4. brachial plexus injury (5%) –> (75% of brachial plexus injuries resolve)
Scapula Fracture
i. Types of assoc injuries (medical)
iii. Types of assoc injuries (medical):
1. Pulmonary injury
2. Pneumothorax (32%)
3. Pulmonary contusion (41%)
4. Head injury (34%)
5. Vascular injury (11%)
Scapula Fracture: Classification (Broad)
Classification is based on the location of the fracture and includes:
- coracoid fractures
- acromial fractures
- glenoid fractures
- scapular neck fractures
* ** look for “floating shoulder”*** - scapular body fractures
- scapulothoracic dissociation
Scapula Fracture
What is floating shoulder
SCAPULAR NECK fractures with associated ACJ SEPARATION or CLAVICLE fracture
Scapula Fracture: Corocoid Fracture Classifcation
Type 1 : Proximal to the CC ligament
Type 2: Tip of corocoid fracture
Scapula Fracture: Acromial Fracture Classifcation
Type 1: Non-displaced or mininmally displaced
1a. tip of acromion
1b. neck of acromion
Type 2: Displaced but does not compromise SA space
Type 3: Displaced and compromising SA space
3a. High acromion #
3b. Low acromion #
Scapula Fracture: Glenoid Fracture Classifcation
- Eponymous name
- Types
- Ideberg (Types 1 - 6)
2. Types Ia= anterior rim; 1b = posterior rim II= Exiting laterally III= Exiting superiorly IV= Exiting medially Va= Combination of II + IV Vb = Combination III + IV Vc = Combined II + III + IV VI = Severe comminution
Scapula Fracture: imaging
i. XR views (3)
ii. CT indications
i. true AP, scapular Y and axillary lateral view
ii. Indications for CT
(1) intra-articular fracture
(2) significant displacement (3) 3D recon useful
Scapula Fracture: Treatment
Non-operative
i. Technique
ii. indications
iii. Outcomes
i. Sling for 2 weeks followed by early motion
ii. indicated for vast majority of scapula fractures (90% are minimally displaced and acceptably aligned)
iii. union at 6 weeks / can expect no functional deficits
Scapula Fracture:Treatment
Operative
i. Technique
ii. indications (5)
iii. Outcomes: ______% good to excellent outcomes with ORIF
i. ORIF
ii. Indication for ORIF
1. glenohumeral instability - denoted by:
- > 25% glenoid involvement + sublux
- > 5mm of glenoid articular surface step off or major gap
- excessive medialization of glenoid
- Displaced scapula neck fx (>40 degrees angulation or 1 cm translation)
- open fracture
- loss of rotator cuff function
- coracoid fx with > 1cm of displacement
iii. 70%
Scapula Fracture:Treatment
Surgical Technique
i. approach (most common) ?
ii. internervous plane between ________ muscle (___________nerve) and Teres ________ (_______ nerve)
i. Judet approach is most common
ii. internervous plane between infraspinatus muscle (suprascapular nerve) and teres minor (axillary nerve)
Clavicle shaft fractures: Introduction
- Middle third fractures acocunt for __to__% of all clavicle fractures
2.
- 75-80%
2
Clavicle shaft fractures
- Deforming forces
- Associated injuries (rare) but include:
- sternocleidomastoid muscle pulls the medial fragment posterosuperiorly
- pectoralis and weight of arm pull the lateral fragment inferomedially
- open fractures buttonhole through platysma
- ipsilateral scapular fx; rib fracture; pneumothorax; NV injury (consider S-T dissoc in high energy etc)
Clavicle shaft fractures
Anatomy:
- Static stabilisers (2)
a) ___________b) ___________c) ___________ - Which is strongest - conoid OR trapaziod lig?
3) Dynamic stabilisers (2)
1a. Acromioclavicular ligament
◾provides AP stability
◾has sup, inf, ant and post components
◾superior ligament is strongest, followed by posterior
1b. Coracoclavicular ligaments (trapezoid and conoid)
◾provides sup/inf stability ◾trapezoid inserts 3 cm from end of clavicle
◾conoid inserts 4.5 cm from end of clavicle in the posterior border
1c. Capsule
2. Conoid ligament strongest
3. Deltoid and Trapezius
Clavicle shaft fractures:
Classification middle third fractures
- Neer
- Displaced
- Nondisplaced - AO
A=Simple
B= Wedge
C= Complex
- not widely used
Clavicle shaft fractures
Standard Xray views ?
What is ZANCA View ?
- Routine views
- sitting/standing upright,
- standard AP view of bilateral shoulders - Additional views
- 15° cephalic tilt (ZANCA view)
- determine superior/inferior displacement
- may consider having the patient hold 5 to 10 lbs weight in affected hand
Clavicle shaft fractures: Treatment
Non-operative
1. Details
- Indications
- Sling immobilization with gentle ROM exercises at 2-4 weeks and strengthening at 6-10 weeks
- Controversial / Evolving
- min displaced (middle third)
◾shortening and displacement <2cm
◾no neurologic deficit
◾no significant displacement to the superior shoulder suspensory complex (<10mm displacement)
Clavicle shaft fractures:
- What structures make up the superior shoulder suspensory complex? (6)
Ring formed by:
- CC lig
- AC lig
- Corocoid process
- Distal clavicle
- Acromion tip
- CA lig
Clavicle shaft fractures: Treatment
Non-operative
- Outcomes
- Outcomes
(i) Nonunion (1-5%) Risk factors for nonunion: -> comminution; -> 100% displacd -> shortening >2 cm -> advanced age -> female gender
(ii) Poorer cosmesis
(iii) Decreased shoulder strength and endurance
- > seen with displaced midshaft clavicle fracture healed with > 2 cm of shortening
Clavicle shaft fractures: Treatment
Operative: ORIF
- Indications: absolute
- Relative and controversial indications
- Indications: absolute
- open fxs
- displaced fracture with skin tenting
- subclavian artery or vein injury
- floating shoulder (clavicle and scapula neck fx)
- symptomatic nonunion
- symptomatic malunion - Relative / Controversial
- Displaced middle third with >2cm shortening
- bilateral, displaced clavicle fractures
- brachial plexus injury (questionable b/c 66% have spontaneous return)
- closed head injury
- seizure disorder
- polytrauma patient
Clavicle shaft fractures: Treatment
Operative: ORIF
Outcomes
- Pro’s
- Con’s
- Advantages of ORIF
- improved results with ORIF for clavicle fractures with >2cm shortening and 100% displacement
- improved functional outcome / less pain with overhead activity
- faster time to union
- decreased symptomatic malunion rate
- improved cosmetic satisfaction
- improved overall shoulder satisfaction
- increased shoulder strength and endurance - Disadvantages of ORIF
- Increased risk of need for future procedures (implant removal; debridement for infection)
- NVI
- Infection
Proximal Humerus Fractures
Epidemiology
- incidence ____% of all fractures
- _______ most common non-vertebral fracture in pts >65yo
Demographics
- __:__ female to male ratio
- ____________ associated with more complex fracture types
Epidemiology
1. incidence: 4-6% of all fractures
- THIRD most common non-vertebral fracture in pts >65yo
Demographics
- Female:male ratio = 2:1
- INCREASING AGE associated with more complex fracture types
Proximal Humerus Fractures
Pathoanatomy
1. Displacing forces ?
- Vascularity of articular segment is more likely to be preserved if ≥ _______ is attached to articular segment
- The 3 most accurate predictors of humeral head ischemia are:
a) ____ of calcar length attached to articular segment
b) disrupted _______
c) basic fracture pattern
- Displacing forces
- Pec Major displaces shaft ant. & medial
- SSpin, InfSpin, and Teres Minor ext rotate GT
- Subscap Int rotates articular segment/LT - > 8mm of calcar
3a) <8 mm of calcar length attached to articular segment
3b) Disrupted medial hinge (medial cortex congruence)
3c) Basic fracture pattern
NOTE ** predictors of humeral head ischemia do not necessarily predict subsequent AVN
Proximal Humerus Fractures
Associated conditions (2 broad groups)
Q. Incidence of Arterial injury around __to__%
Associated conditions
- nerve injury (axillary most common)
- Arterial injury (uncommon)
A. incidence 5-6%
- higher likelihood in older patients
- most often occur at level of surgical neck or with subcoracoid dislocation of the head
Proximal Humerus Fractures
Vascular anatomy
1. Arcuate artery branches from which larger artery?
- Anterolateral ascending branch is a branch of the __________
- Which artery is main supply to greater tuberosity?
- _______ artery : recent studies suggest it is the main blood supply to humeral head ?
Vascular anatomy ◦
- Anterior humeral circumflex artery
- Large number of anastamoses with other vessels in the proximal humerus - Anterolateral ascending branch is a branch of the anterior humeral circumflex artery
- Arcuate artery is the terminal branch and main supply to GT
- Posterior humeral circumflex artery
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Classification
- Name (eponymous)
- descibe
- Neer classification
- Based on anatomic relationship of 4 segments
◾greater tuberosity
◾lesser tuberosity
◾articular surface
◾shaft
(***Note: Considered a separate part if: ◾displaced > 1 cm OR
◾45° angulation
Proximal Humerus Fractures:
XRAY views
- Standard views (3)
- Special views (3)
- Combined Cortical thickness (medial +lateral cortex) >____mm on XR correlates with _____________ ?
- complete trauma series
i. true AP (Grashey)
ii. scapular Y
iii. axillary - Additional views
i. apical oblique
ii. Velpeau
iii. West Point axillary - Combined cortical thickness (medial + lateral thickness >4 mm)
studies suggest correlation with increased lateral plate pullout strength
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
Non-operative (Sling immobilization followed by progressive rehab):
- Indications:
- Start early mobilisation with ____ days
- Indications: most Prox humerus fx’s including:
- > Min. displaced surgical/anatomic neck fractures
- > GT Fx’s displaced < 5mm
- > Fractures in patients who are not surgical candidates
Additional variables to consider: (age / fracture type /
fracture displacement / bone quality / dominance / general medical condition / concurrent injuries
- 14 days
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
Operative
- Fixation vs Arthroplasty
a. ) Fixation techniques
b. ) Arthroplasty
1a. ) Fixation
- CRPP (closed reduction percutaneous pinning)
- ORIF
- Intramedullary nailing
1b. ) Arthroplasty
- Hemiarthroplasty
- RTSR
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
CRPP (closed reduction percutaneous pinning)
- Indications
- Outcomes
- Indications:
- > 2-part surgical neck
- > 3-part and valgus-impacted
- -> 4-part fractures in patients with good bone quality, minimal metaphyseal comminution, and intact medial calcar - Outcomes:
- considerably higher complication rate compared to ORIF, HA, and RSA
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
ORIF
- Indications
- Outcomes
- Indications:
- GT displaced > 5mm
- 2, 3 and 4-part Fx in younger patients
- Head-split Fx in younger patients - Outcomes
- medial support necessary for fx’s with posteromedial comminution
- calcar screw placement critical to decrease varus collapse of head
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
IMN
- Indications
- Outcomes
- Indications
- surgical neck fractures or 3-part GT in
- younger patients
- Combined prox. humerus and humeral shaft fractures - Outcomes
- biomechanically inferior with torsional stress compared to plates
- favorable rates of fracture healing and ROM compared to ORIF
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
Hemiarthroplasty
- Indications
- Outcomes
a) Good if (2)
b) Bad if (2)
- Indications = controversial
- younger patients (40-65) with complex fractures or head-splitting components likely to have complications with ORIF
- recommended use of convertable stems to permit easier conversion to RSA if necessary in future
2a. Outcomes- Good results if:
- accurate tuberosity reduction
- restoration of humeral height and version
2b. Outcomes- Poor results if:
- tuberosity nonunion or malunion
- retroversion of humeral component > 40°
(***note: inconsistent results reported in literature)
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
Reverse TSR
- Indications
- Outcomes
- Complications/Cons
- Indications
- low-demand elderly individuals with nonreconstructible tuberosities and poor bone stock
- functioning deltoid needed - Outcomes
- Early results demonstrate equivalent +/- better ROM and clinical outcome scores compared to ORIF and Hemi - Incidence of scapular notching, glenoid loosening, instability, and infection have all increased with the increasing popularity of the procedure
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
- CRPP : Technique
- Complications
- Technique
- Threaded pins but do not cross cartilage
- Ext. rotate shoulder during pin placement
- Engage cortex 2 cm inferior to inferior border of humeral head - Complications
- With lateral pins risk of injury to axillary nerve
- With anterior pins risk of injury to biceps tendon, musculocutaneous n., cephalic vein
- Possible pin migration
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
ORIF : Technique
- Approach
- Technique
- Approach
- anterior (deltopectoral)
- lateral (deltoid-splitting): incr. risk of axillary nerve injury - Technique
a) Heavy nonabsorbable sutures:
- Figure-of-8 technique should be used for isolated GT fx reduction and fixation (avoid hardware due to impingement)
b) Isolated screw
- May be used for GT fx reduction and fixation in young patients with good bone stock
c) Locking plate
- screw cut-out (up to 14%) is the most common complication following fixation of 3- and 4- part proximal humeral fractures and fractures treated with locking plates
- More elastic than blade plate making it a better option in osteoporotic bone
- Place plate lateral to the bicipital groove and pec. major tendon to avoid injury to the ascending branch of anterior humeral circumflex artery
- Placement of an inferomedial calcar screw(s) can prevent post-operative varus collapse, especially in osteoporotic bone
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
IMN
- Approach
- Technique
- Complications
- Approach
- superior deltoid-splitting - Technique
- lock nail with trauma or pathologic fractures - Complications
- rod migration in older patients with osteoporotic bone is a concern
- shoulder pain from violating rotator cuff
- nerve injury with interlocking screw placement
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
Hemiarthroplasty
- Approach
- Technique:
- Approach
- anterior (deltopectoral) - Technique:
- Cerclage wire or suture passed through hole in prosthesis and tuberosities improves fracture stability
-Place GT 10 mm below articular surface of humeral head (HTD = head to tuberosity distance)
(***note: impairment in ER kinematics and 8-fold increase in torque with nonanatomic placement of tuberosities)
- Height of the prosthesis best determined off the superior edge of the pectoralis major tendon (5.6 cm between top of humeral head and superior edge of tendon)
- Post-operative passive external rotation places the most stress on the lesser tuberosity fragment
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Treatment
Reverse TSR : Technique
- Approach
- Technique
- Approach
- anterior (deltopectoral) - Technique
- ensure adequate glenoid bone stock
- ensure functioning deltoid muscle
- repair of tuberosities recommended despite ability of RSA design to compensate for non-functioning tubersosities/rotator cuff
Proximal Humerus Fractures:
Rehab
- Best results with guided 3-phase program:
a) Phase 1
b) Phase 2
c) Phase 3
1a. Early passive ROM
1b. Active ROM and progressive resistance
1c. Advanced stretching and strengthening program
(*** Note: prolonged immobilization leads to stiffness)
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Complications
Malunion
1a) usually _______
1b) Results inferior if converting from _______ malunited fracture to TSA
use ________ instead
Nonunion
2a. Nonunion usually with ______ and ______ fx
2b. Rx of chronic nonunion/malunion in the elderly should include _____
2c. LT nonunion leads to weakness with ____ testing
2d. GT nonunion leads to lack of ________
2e. Greatest risk factors for non-union are age and smoking
1a. varus apex-anterior or malunion of GT
1b. Varus; Use RTSR instead
2b. Nonunion
2a. usually with surgical neck and tuberosity fx
2b. Arthroplasty
2c. Lift-off testing
2d. active shoulder elevation
2e. age and smoking
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Complications
- Screw cut-out = most common complication after ___________ (up to ___%)
- AVN
- Nerve injury
a) ______ nerve injury most common (up to 58% with studies using EMG)
b) increased risk with ________ approach
c) Axillary nerve is usually found ~__cm distal to the tip of the acromion
d) _______ nerve 2nd most common injured (up to 48%)
- Screw cut out = most common complication after locked plating fixation (up to 14%)
- AVN
- better tolerated than in lower extremity
- no relationship to type of fixation (plate or cerclage wires)
3a. Axillary
3b. Lateral (deltoid-splitting) approach
3c. ~7cm
3d. Suprascapular nerve
Proximal Humerus Fractures: Complications
- Screw cut-out
- Avascular necrosis
- Nerve injury
- Malunion
- Nonunion
- Rotator cuff injuries and dysfunction
- Missed posterior dislocation (especially in cases with lesser tuberosity fractures)
- Adhesive capsulitis
- Posttraumatic arthritis
- Infection
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Definition:
A traumatic injury pattern of the elbow characterized by
- elbow dislocation (often associated with posterolateral dislocation or LCL injury )
- radial head or neck fracture
- coronoid fracture
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
- Pathophysiology
a) Mechanism
b) Pathoanatomy
- Structures of elbow fail from _____ to ______
- Prognosis: Historically poor due to:
a.
b.
c.
Pathophysiology
1a. Mechanism
- fall on extended arm that results in a combination of
valgus, axial, and posterolateral rotatory forces (produces posterolateral dislocation)
1b. Pathoanatomy
- structures of elbow fail from lateral to medial (LCL disrupted first–> ant capsule–> possible MCL disruption
2a. persistent instability
2b. stiffness
2c. arthrosis
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Anatomy
Radial head:
1a. Primary restraint to ______ instability
1b. Secondary _____ stabilizer
1c. Forearm in neutral rotation, lateral portion of articular margin devoid of cartilage (roughly between ______ and ______)
Coronoid process
2a. Provides an _____ and _____ buttress to ulnohumeral joint.
2b. Resists ________ beyond 30 deg of flexion
2c. Fracture fragment always has some ______ attached
(useful in repair)
- Radial head
1a. Posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI)1b. Valgus stabilizer
1c. radial styloid and listers tubercle - Coronoid process
2a. Anterior and varus2b. Post subluxation
2c. Anterior capsule (**useful in repair)
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Medial collateral ligament (MCL)
- Three components of MCL?
- MCL - 3 components:
a. Anterior bundle
- most important to stability: restraint to valgus and PMRI
- inserts on sublime tubercle (AM facet of coronoid)
- specifically inserts 18.4mm dorsal to tip of coronoid process
b. Posterior bundle
c. Transverse ligament
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Lateral collateral ligament (LCL)
- Insertion
- Primary restraint to ____?
- Four components of LCL
- When injured is usually avulsed off of the ______?
- Supinator crest distal to lesser sigmoid notch
- Posterolateral rotatory instability
- Four components
a. lateral UCL ligament (most important for stability)
b. Radial collateral ligament
c. Annular ligament
d. Accessory collateral ligament - Lateral epicondyle
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Treatment : Nonop
- immobilize in 90 deg of flexion for 7-10 days
- Indications (rare)
- ulnohumeral and radiocapitellar joints must be concentrically reduced
- radial head fx must not meet surgical indications
- coronoid fx must be small
- elbow should be sufficiently stable to allow early ROM - Technique
- one week of immobilization followed by progressive ROM
- active motion initiated with resting splint at 90 degrees, avoiding terminal extension
- static progressive extension splinting at night after 4-6 weeks
- strengthening protocol after 6 weeks
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Treatment : Operative
- ORIF versus radial head arthroplasty, LCL reconsutrction, coronoid ORIF, possible MCL reconstruction
- Indications
- terrible triad elbow injury that includes an unstable radial head fracture, a type III
- coronoid fracture, and an associated elbow dislocation
coronoid avulsion fractures involving less than 10% of the coronoid do not confer elbow stability in cadaveric studies and therefore do not require repair
(Note: should instability persist after addressing the radial head and the LCL complex in the presence of a small coronoid avulsion fracture, the next best step is MCL reconstruction)
Terrible Triad Injury of Elbow
Complications
- Instability
- > more common following type I or II coronoid fractures - Failure of internal fixation
- -> most common following repair of radial neck fractures (poor vascularity leading to osteonecrosis and nonunion) - Post-traumatic stiffness
- very common complication
- initiate early ROM to prevent - Heterotopic ossification
- consider prophylaxis in pts with head injury or in setting of revision surgery - Post-traumatic arthritis
- due to chondral damage at time of injury and/or residual instability
Capitellum Fractures
- Definition
- Epidemiology
a. __% of elbow fractures
b. __% of all distal humerus fractures
- Coronal fracture of the distal humerus at capitellum
- Epidemiology
a. 1% of elbow fractures
b. 6% of all distal humerus fractures
Capitellum Fractures
Pathophysiology
- Mechanism
- Pathoanatomy
- Mechanism
- Typically, low-energy fall on outstretched hand
- Direct, axial compression with the elbow in a semi-flexed position creates shear forces - Pathoanatomy
- radiocapitellar joint is an important static stabilizer of the elbow
- capitellar fracture can cause potential block to motion and instability due to loss of the radiocapitellar articulation
Capitellum Fractures
- Associated injuries
- Prognosis
- Reoperation rates
- Associated conditions
- injuries to radial head and/or LUCL can occur up to 60% of the time - Prognosis
- most patients will gain functional range of motion but have residual stiffness
- surgical treatment results are generally favorable - Reoperation rates as high as 48% (mostly due to stiffness)
Capitellum Fractures
Classification
Bryan and Morrey Classification (with McKee modification)
Type I:
- Large osseous piece of the capitellum involved
- Can involve trochlea
Type II (Kocher-Lorenz fracture):
- Shear fracture of articular cartilage
- Articular cartilage separation with very little subchondral bone attached
Type III (Broberg-Morrey fracture):
- Severely comminuted
- Multifragmentary:
Type IV (McKee modification) - Coronal shear fracture that includes the capitellum and trochlea
Capitellum Fractures
Non-op
Nonoperative
posterior splint immobilization for < 3 weeks
indications
nondisplaced Type I fractures (<2 mm displacement)
nondisplaced Type II fractures (<2 mm displacement)
Capitellum Fractures
Operative
- ORIF
a. indications:- displaced Type I fractures (>2 mm displacement)
- Type IV fractures
b. ORIF with lateral column approach: indications
- isolated capitellar fractures
- Type IV with trochlear involvement
c. ORIF with posterior approach +/- olecranon osteotomy: indications
- capitellar fractures with associated fractures/injuries to distal humuers/olecranon and/or medial side of the elbow
- Arthroscopic-assisted ORIF: indications
- isolated type I # with good bone stock
- Fragment excision: indications
- displaced Type II/III (>2 mm displ.)
- Total elbow arthroplasty: indications
- unreconstructable capitellar fractures in elderly patients with associated medial column instability
Capitellum Fractures
Complications: (11)
- Elbow contracture/stiffness (most common)
- Nonunion (1-11% with ORIF)
- Ulnar nerve injury
- Heterotopic ossification (4% with ORIF)
- AVN of capitellum
- Nonunion of olecranon osteotomy
- Instability
- Post-traumatic arthritis
- Cubital valgus
- Tardy ulnar nerve palsy
- Infection
Monteggia Fractures
- define
- epidemiology
- prognosis
- Proximal 1/3 ulnar fracture with associated radial head dislocation/instability
- Epidemiology
- rare in adults
- more common in children with peak incidence between 4 and 10 years of age
*** NOTE: different treatment protocol for children
- Prognosis
- If diagnosis is delayed greater than 2-3 weeks complication rates increase significantly
Monteggia Fractures
Classification
Bado Classification Type I (60%): Fracture of the proximal or middle third of the ulna with anterior dislocation of the radial head (most common in children and young adults)
Type II (15%): Fracture of the proximal or middle third of the ulna with posterior dislocation of the radial head (70 to 80% of adult Monteggia fractures)
Type III (20%): Fracture of the ulnar metaphysis (distal to coronoid process) with lateral dislocation of the radial head
Type IV (5%): Fracture of the proximal or middle third of the ulna and radius with dislocation of the radial head in any direction
Monteggia Fractures
- Most common nerve injury ?
- Other complication to be aware of ?
- PIN neuropathy (up to 10% in acute injuries - spontaneously resolves in most cases)
- Malunion with radial head dislocation
- usually caused by failure to obtain anatomic alignment of ulna
- Treatment: ulnar osteotomy and open reduction of the radial head
Monteggia Fractures: Treatment
- Adult
- Paediatric
- most adult fractures treated with operation
2. Closed reduction can be successful; MUST ensure stabilty and anatomic alignment of ulna fracture
Humeral Shaft Fractures
Incidence/Epidemiology
1. __to__% of all fracture
Epidemiology
- Age group most often involved ?
- Incidence ◦3-5% of all fractures
- Bimodal age distribution◾young patients with high-energy trauma◾elderly, osteopenic patients with low-energy injuries
Humeral Shaft Fractures
Relevant anatomy
- Muscle insertions (3)
- Muscle origins (3)
- Radial nerve course
3a. ___cm proximal to lateral epicondyle
3b. ____cm proximal to medial epicondyle
- Insertion for: pec. major / deltoid / coracobrachialis
- Origin for: brachialis / triceps / brachioradialis
- Radial nerve (courses along spiral groove)
3a. 14cm proximal to the lateral epicondyle
3b. 20cm proximal to the medial epicondyle
Humeral Shaft Fractures
- Classification system
- What is a Holstein-Lewis fracture?
Descriptive:
- Fracture location: proximal, middle or distal third
- Fracture pattern: spiral, transverse, comminuted
- Holstein-Lewis fracture:
◦ A spiral fracture of the distal one-third of the humeral shaft commonly associated with neuropraxia of the radial nerve (22% incidence)
Humeral Shaft Fractures
- Indications for Non-op management? (ie. Criteria for acceptable alignment)
- Is radial nerve palsy a contraindication to functional bracing/non-op Rx?
Indicated in vast majority of humeral shaft fractures
- Criteria for acceptable alignment include:
◾< 20° anterior angulation
◾< 30° varus/valgus angulation
◾< 3 cm shortening - No
Humeral Shaft Fractures
Indications for surgery
- Absolute indications for ORIF? (5)
- Fracture type requiring orif (relative)
1a. open fracture
1b. vascular injury requiring repair
1c. brachial plexus injury
1d. ipsilateral forearm fracture (floating elbow)
1e. compartment syndrome
- TV or short oblique
Humeral Shaft Fractures
Outcomes of treatment
- Non-op:
- Non-operative
- 90% union rate (>risk with prox third, oblique or spiral fx)
- varus ang is common but rarely has functional or cosmetic sequelae
Humeral Shaft Fractures: Operative Treatment
ORIF
1. Approach (2 main options)
a.
b.
- Approaches
a) Anterolateral approach:
◾used for prox to middle third fx’s
◾distal extension of the deltopectoral approach
◾radial nerve identified between the brachialis and brachioradialis distally
b) Posterior approach
◾used for distal to middle third fx’s (can be extensile)
◾triceps may either be split or elevated with a lateral paratricipital exposure
◾radial nerve is found medial to the long and lateral heads and 2cm proximal to the deep head of the triceps
◾radial nerve exits the posterior compartment through lateral intramuscular septum 10 cm proximal to radiocapitellar joint
◾lateral brachial cutaneous/posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve serves as an anatomic landmark leading to the radial nerve during a paratricipital approach
◦techniques ◾plate osteosynthesis commonly with 4.5mm plate (narrow or broad) ◾3.5mm plates may function adequately
◾absolute stability with lag screw or compression plating in simple patterns
◾apply plate in bridging mode in the presence of significant comminution
◦postoperative ◾full crutch weight bearing shown to have no effect on union
Humeral Shaft Fractures
ORIF
Technique
- Plate used?
- Absolute vs relative stability?
- Post-op WB status?
Techniques
- Plate osteosynthesis
- > commonly with 4.5mm plate (narrow or broad
- > 3.5mm plates may function adequately - Attain absolute stability with lag screw or compression plating in simple patterns
- > apply plate in bridging mode in the presence of significant comminution - Postoperative
- > full crutch weight bearing shown to have no effect on union
Humeral Shaft Fractures
Closed IMN: Technique
1. Antegrade OR retrograde ?
Closed IMN vs ORIF
- Overall complication rates compared to ORIF?
- Non-union rates compared to ORIF ?
- Shoulder pain and functional outcomes compared to ORIF
- Nerves at risk with distal (a) and prox (b) locking
- WB status post-op (IMN)
- Can be done antegrade or retrograde
- IM nailing associated with higher total complication rates
- Nonunion rates not shown to be different between IMN and plating in recent meta-analyses
- increased rate in IMN vs ORIF (16-37%)
HOWEVER…
functional shoulder outcome scores (ASES scores) not shown to be different between IMN and ORIF
5a. Radial nerve
5b. Musculocutaneous nerve
6. FWB had no effect on union
Humeral Shaft Fractures
Complications
- non-union
a. with operation ___%
b. without operation ___% - Malunion
a. Most common deformity?
b. higher risk in what # pattern?
1a. 5 to 10% in nonop
1b. 2 to 10% with surgery
2a. Varus angulation (rarely a functional or cosmetic issue)
2b. Tranverse