Research Article
PDF EndNote BibTex Cite

Year 2022, Volume 13, Issue 3, 334 - 339, 01.07.2022
https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1057106

Abstract

References

  • Emmett JE, Breck LW: A review and analysis of 11,000 fractures seen in a private practice of orthopaedic surgery, 1937–1956. J Bone Joint Surg Am1958, 40-A:1169–75.
  • Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M, Talbot M: Fractures of the humeral shaft. In Skeletal Trauma: Basic Science, Management and Reconstruction. volume 2. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008:1593–4.
  • Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, et al. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:1469–73.
  • Tsai CH, Fong YC, Chen YH, et al. The epidemiology of traumatic humeral shaft fractures in Taiwan. Int Orthop 2009;33:463–7.
  • Tytherleigh-Strong G, Walls N, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:249–53.
  • Sarmiento A, Kinman PB, Galvin EG, et al. Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977; 59:596-601.
  • Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:478-86.
  • Rutgers M, Ring D. Treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus using a functional brace. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:597–601.
  • Ekholm R, Tidermark J, Törnkvist H, et al. Outcome after closed functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:591–6.
  • Papasoulis E, Drosos GI, Ververidis AN, Verettas DA. Functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures. A review of clinical studies. Injury. 2010;41:21-27.
  • Alexander MC, Sanjit RK, Kenneth AE. Set it and Forget it: Diaphyseal Fractures of the Humerus Undergo Minimal Change in Angulation After Functional Brace Application. Iowa Orthop J. 2018;38:73-77.
  • Papasoulis E, Drosos GI, Ververidis AN, Verettas DA. Functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures. A review of clinical studies. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 2010;41: 21–7.
  • Balfour GW, Mooney V, Ashby ME.. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus treated with a ready-made fracture brace. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(1):11-3.
  • Öztürk İ, Ertürer E, Uzun M, Akman Ş, Seçkin F. The effectiveness of functional bracing in the conservative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2006;40(4):269-73.
  • Wallny T, Westermann K, Sagebiel C, Reimer M, Wagner UA. Functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures: indications and results. J Ortfop Trauma 1997;11(4):283-7.
  • Zagorski JB, Latta LL, Zych GA, Finnieston AR. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. Treatment with prefabricated braces. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(4):607-10.
  • Sarmiento A, Horowitch A, AboulaWa A. Functional bracing for comminuted extra-articular fractures of the distal third of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990;72:283–287
  • Sharma VK, Jain AK, Gupta RK, Tyagi AK, Sethi PK. Non-operative treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft: a comparative study. J Indian Med Assn, 1991;89:157-60.

The Effect of Deformity on Functional Scores in Humeral Shaft Fractures Treated With Functional Bracing

Year 2022, Volume 13, Issue 3, 334 - 339, 01.07.2022
https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1057106

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of deformity on functional scores of humeral shaft fracture patients who treated conservatively with functional bracing. Materials and Methods: Patients who had humeral shaft fracture and treated with functional bracing between 2014 and 2019, were included in this study. Second or third day, two part functional brace was applied. The deformity angle of the humerus on the anteroposterior radiography was measured and divided into 3 groups. Elbow range of motion (ROM), shoulder abduction and the difference of range of external rotation (ER) compared to contralateral shoulder was evaluated. Moreover, Constant scores of the shoulder and Mayo scores of the elbow were evaluated. Results: Forty-two patients were evaluated. The mean healing time was determined as 12.11 ± 2.31 weeks. Thirty-seven of the patients were successfully treated. Nonunions were detected in only 5 patients during follow-up. The varus deformity was measured between 6°-10° in 18 patients, >11° in 12 patients, and between 0°-5°in 7 patients. In the varus deformity groups, a statistically significant difference was observed for the external rotation measurements (p:0.044) and for elbow ROM measurements (p: 0.048). The reason of the external rotation and elbow ROM measurements difference was >11° varus deformity group. There was no statistically significant difference between the shoulder abduction range, Mayo scores and shoulder constant scores of the varus deformity groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Our clinical and radiological datas show that satisfactory results are obtained in most of the humeral shaft fractures treated with functional bracing.

References

  • Emmett JE, Breck LW: A review and analysis of 11,000 fractures seen in a private practice of orthopaedic surgery, 1937–1956. J Bone Joint Surg Am1958, 40-A:1169–75.
  • Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M, Talbot M: Fractures of the humeral shaft. In Skeletal Trauma: Basic Science, Management and Reconstruction. volume 2. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008:1593–4.
  • Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, et al. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:1469–73.
  • Tsai CH, Fong YC, Chen YH, et al. The epidemiology of traumatic humeral shaft fractures in Taiwan. Int Orthop 2009;33:463–7.
  • Tytherleigh-Strong G, Walls N, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:249–53.
  • Sarmiento A, Kinman PB, Galvin EG, et al. Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977; 59:596-601.
  • Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:478-86.
  • Rutgers M, Ring D. Treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus using a functional brace. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:597–601.
  • Ekholm R, Tidermark J, Törnkvist H, et al. Outcome after closed functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:591–6.
  • Papasoulis E, Drosos GI, Ververidis AN, Verettas DA. Functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures. A review of clinical studies. Injury. 2010;41:21-27.
  • Alexander MC, Sanjit RK, Kenneth AE. Set it and Forget it: Diaphyseal Fractures of the Humerus Undergo Minimal Change in Angulation After Functional Brace Application. Iowa Orthop J. 2018;38:73-77.
  • Papasoulis E, Drosos GI, Ververidis AN, Verettas DA. Functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures. A review of clinical studies. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 2010;41: 21–7.
  • Balfour GW, Mooney V, Ashby ME.. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus treated with a ready-made fracture brace. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(1):11-3.
  • Öztürk İ, Ertürer E, Uzun M, Akman Ş, Seçkin F. The effectiveness of functional bracing in the conservative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2006;40(4):269-73.
  • Wallny T, Westermann K, Sagebiel C, Reimer M, Wagner UA. Functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures: indications and results. J Ortfop Trauma 1997;11(4):283-7.
  • Zagorski JB, Latta LL, Zych GA, Finnieston AR. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. Treatment with prefabricated braces. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(4):607-10.
  • Sarmiento A, Horowitch A, AboulaWa A. Functional bracing for comminuted extra-articular fractures of the distal third of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990;72:283–287
  • Sharma VK, Jain AK, Gupta RK, Tyagi AK, Sethi PK. Non-operative treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft: a comparative study. J Indian Med Assn, 1991;89:157-60.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Orthopedics
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Enver KILIÇ> (Primary Author)
SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ANKARA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0001-5475-8966
Türkiye


Güzelali ÖZDEMİR>
SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ANKARA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0003-4279-0955
Türkiye


Barış YILMAZ>
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Research and Training Hospital, Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic
0000-0002-1221-8782
Türkiye


Olgun BİNGÖL>
SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ANKARA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0003-1720-1709
Türkiye


Baran KÖMÜR This is me
Gaziosmanpaşa Taksim Research and Training Hospital, Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic
0000-0003-2821-9859
Türkiye

Publication Date July 1, 2022
Application Date January 14, 2022
Acceptance Date February 25, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022, Volume 13, Issue 3

Cite

EndNote %0 Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi The Effect of Deformity on Functional Scores in Humeral Shaft Fractures Treated With Functional Bracing %A Enver Kılıç , Güzelali Özdemir , Barış Yılmaz , Olgun Bingöl , Baran Kömür %T The Effect of Deformity on Functional Scores in Humeral Shaft Fractures Treated With Functional Bracing %D 2022 %J Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi %P 1309-470X-1309-5994 %V 13 %N 3 %R doi: 10.31067/acusaglik.1057106 %U 10.31067/acusaglik.1057106