Endosteal Fibular Strut Graft with Proximal Humeral Locking Plate in Delayed and Neglected Fractures of the Proximal Humerus

• 作者: Piyush Wasudeo Gadegone Vijayanand Lokhande Wasudeo Gadegone
• 来源期刊: 矫形学期刊(英文)
• 学科: 数学
• 关键词: Proximal Humerus Endosteal Fibular Graft Neglected Fractures Locking Plate Cortico-Cancellous Bone Grafts
• 年，卷（期）: 2020,（12）
• 页码范围: 359-370
• 页数: 12页
• 分类号: O17

摘要

<b><span>Purpose</span></b><b><span>: </span></b><span>The purpose </span><span>of </span><span>this study was to define a treatment protocol in which a non-vascularized endosteal fibular strut graft, a corticocancellous grafts and a locking plate construct </span><span>are</span><span> used for stabilization of the delayed and neglected proximal humerus fractures and to report its outcome. </span><b><span>Patients & Methods</span></b><b><span>:</span></b><b><span> </span></b><span>Eleven patients (6 females and 5 males) with delayed, neglected proximal humerus fractures were included in this study,</span><span> </span><span>conducted between March 2015 </span><span>and </span><span>December 2019.</span><span> </span><span>Average age of the patients was 57 years (range: 41 to 67 yrs). All patients were treated with the debridement, decortication and shingling of the bone at the site of the fracture followed by using an endosteal fibular strut graft, corticocancellous bone grafts and stabilization with locking plate. The patients were followed</span><span> </span><span>up for a mean time of 16.3 months (range: 13 </span><span>to </span><span>40 months). The patient outcomes were evaluated using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, and the modified scoring system of Constant and Murley. </span><b><span>Results</span></b><b><span>:</span></b><b><span> </span></b><span>Union at the fracture site was achieved in all patients at a mean </span><span>of </span><span>8.5 months (range: 6 to 11 months). The DASH score improved from an average pre-operative score of 71.1 (range: 64 to 78) to an average post-operative score of 25.2 (range: 21 to 35) at the final follow-up. Albeit with a small sample size of n</span><span> </span><span>=</span><span> </span><span>11, this difference was found to be statistically significant (p</span><span> </span><span><</span><span> </span><span>0.05). The CM score improved from an average pre-operative score of 33.2 (range: 20 to 48) to an average post-o