The course of the radial nerve in the distal humerus: A novel, anatomy based, radiographic assessment

Iatrogenic nerve injury during fracture surgery of the upper arm is a well-known complication. Prevention of this type of injuries would be of great value. The literature describes several methods to reduce this type of injury, but no perfect solution is at hand. In this study we introduce a new radiographic evaluation of the course and variation of the radial nerve in the distal part of the humerus in relation to bony landmarks as observed on a plain (trauma) radiographs. Aim of this new approach is to reduce the chance of iatrogenic nerve injury by defining of a danger zone in the distal upper arm regarding the radial nerve and hence give an advise for future implant fabrication. Methods and findings: Measurements were done on both arms of ten specially embalmed specimens. Arms were dissected and radiopaque wires attached to the radial nerve in the distal part of the upper arm. Digital radiographs were obtained to determine the course of the radial nerve in the distal 20 cm of the humerus in relation to bony landmarks; medial epicondyle and capitellum-trochlea projection (CCT). Analysis was done with ImageJ and Microsoft Excel software. We also compared humeral nail specifications from different companies with the course of the radial nerve to predict possible radial nerve damage. Results: The distance from the medial epicondyle to point where the radial nerve bends from posterior to lateral was 142 mm on AP radiographs and 152 mm measured on the lateral radiographs. The average distance from the medial epicondyle to point where the radial nerve bends from lateral to anterior on AP radiographs was 66 mm. On the lateral radiographs where the nerve moves away from the anterior cortex 83 mm to the center of capitellum and trochlea (CCT). The distance from the bifurcation of the radial nerve into the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) and superficial radial nerve was 21 mm on AP radiographs and 42 mm on the lateral radiographs (CCT). Conclusions: The course of the radial nerve in the distal part of the upper arm has great variety. Lateral fixation is relatively safe in a zone between the center of capitellum-trochlea and 48 mm proximal to this point. The danger zone in lateral fixation is in-between 48–122 mm proximal from CCT. In anteroposterior direction; distal fixation is dangerous between 21–101 mm measured from the medial epicondyle. The more distal, the more medial the nerve courses making it more valuable to iatrogenic damage. The IMN we compared with our data all show potential risk in case of (blind) distal locking, especially from lateral to medial direction

Use of the humeral head as a reference point to prevent axillary nerve damage during proximal fixation of humeral fractures: An anatomical and radiographic study

Introduction: Treatment of proximal humeral fractures with plate osteosynthesis or intramedullary nail fixation in humeral shaft fractures with a proximal locking bolt carries the risk of iatrogenic injury of the axillary nerve. The purpose of this anatomical study is to define a more reliable safe zone to prevent iatrogenic axillary nerve injury using the humeral head instead of the acromion as a (radiographic) reference point during operative treatment. Materials and methods: Anatomical dissection and labeling of the axillary nerve and branches was performed on 10 specially embalmed human specimens. Standard AP and straight lateral radiographs were made. The distances were measured indirectly from the cranial tip of the humerus to the axillary nerve on radiographs. Results: The median distance from the cranial tip of the humerus to the axillary nerve was 52 mm. The mean number of axillary nerve branches was 3. The distances from the cranial tip of the humerus to the nerve (branch) varied from 23 to 78 mm. The median distance from the proximal (anterior) branch was 36 mm, to the second branch 47 mm, 54 mm to the third branch and 73 mm to the fourth branch. The axillary nerve moves along with the humerus in cranial and caudal direction when the subacromial space varies. Conclusion: This study shows that the position of the axillary nerve can be better determent using the cranial tip of the humerus as a reference point instead of the acromion. Furthermore, it is unsafe to place the proximal locking bolts in the zone between 24 mm and 78 mm from the cranial tip of the humerus. The greatest chance to cause a lesion of the main branch of the axillary nerve is in the zone between 48 mm and 58 mm caudal from the tip of the humeral head

Conversion to below-elbow cast after 3 weeks is safe for diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures in children

Background It is unclear whether it is safe to convert above-elbow cast (AEC) to below-elbow cast (BEC) in a child who has sustained a displaced diaphyseal both-bone forearm fracture that is stable after reduction. In this multicenter study, we wanted to answer the question: does early conversion to BEC cause similar forearm rotation to that after treatment with AEC alone? Children and methods Children were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of AEC, or 3 weeks of AEC followed by 3 weeks of BEC. The primary outcome was limitation of pronation/supination after 6 months. The secondary outcomes were re-displacement of the fracture, limitation of flexion/extension of the wrist and elbow, complication rate, cast comfort, complaints in daily life, and cosmetics of the fractured arm. Results 62 children were treated with 6 weeks of AEC, and 65 children were treated with 3 weeks of AEC plus 3 weeks of BEC. The follow-up rate was 60/62 and 64/65, respectively with a mean time of 6.9 (4.7-13) months. The limitation of pronation/supination was similar in both groups (18 degrees for the AEC group and 11 degrees for the AEC/BEC group). The secondary outcomes were similar in both groups, with the exception of cast comfort, which was in favor of the AEC/BEC group. Interpretation Early conversion to BEC cast is safe and results in greater cast comfort

Circumstances leading to injurious falls in older men and women in the Netherlands

Background Fall-induced injuries in persons aged 65 years and older are a major public health problem. Data regarding circumstances leading to specific injuries, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hip fractures in older adults are scarce. Objective To investigate the activity distributions leading to indoor and outdoor falls requiring an emergency department (ED) visit, and those resulting in TBIs and hip fractures. Participants 5880 older adults who visited the ED due to a fall. Methods Data is descriptive and stratified by age and gender. Results Two-thirds of all falls occurred indoors. However, there were higher proportions of outdoor falls at ages 65-79 years (48%). Walking up or down stairs (51%) and housekeeping (17%) were the most common indoor activities leading to a TBIs. Walking (42%) and sitting or standing (16%) was the most common indoor activities leading to a hip fracture. The most common outdoor activities were walking (61% for TBIs and 57% for hip fractures) and cycling (10% for TBIs and 24% for hip fractures). Conclusion In the present study we found that the indoor activities distribution leading to TBIs and hip fractures differed. Notably, about half of the traumatic brain injuries and hip fractures in men and women aged 65-79 years occurred outdoors. This study provides new insights into patterns leading to injurious falls by age, gender and injury type, and may guide the targeting of falls prevention at specific activities and risk groups, including highly functional older men and women

Effectiveness of medication withdrawal in older fallers: Results from the improving medication prescribing to reduce risk of falls (IMPROveFALL) trial

Objectives: to investigate the effect of withdrawal of fall-risk-increasing-drugs (FRIDs) versus 'care as usual' on reducing falls in community-dwelling older fallers. Design: randomised multicentre trial. Participants: six hundred and twelve older adults who visited an Emergency Department (ED) because of a fall. Interventions: withdrawal of FRIDs. Main Outcomes and Measures: primary outcome was time to the first self-reported fall. Secondary outcomes were time to the second self-reported fall and to falls requiring a general practitioner (GP)-consultation or ED-visit. Intention-to-treat (primary) and a per-protocol (secondary) analysis were conducted. The hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-fall were calculated using a Cox-regression model. Differences in cumulative incidence of falls were analysed using Poisson regression. Results: during 12 months follow-up, 91 (34%) control and 115 (37%) intervention

HUMeral Shaft Fractures: MEasuring Recovery after Operative versus Non-operative Treatment (HUMMER): A multicenter comparative observational study

Background: Fractures of the humeral shaft are associated with a profound temporary (and in the elderly sometimes even permanent) impairment of independence and quality of life. These fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively, but the optimal tailored treatment is an unresolved problem. As no high-quality comparative randomized or observational studies are available, a recent Cochrane review concluded there is no evidence of sufficient scientific quality available to inform the decision to operate or not. Since randomized controlled trials for this injury have shown feasibility issues, this study is designed to provide the best achievable evidence to answer this unresolved problem. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate functional recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment in adult patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. Secondary aims include the effect of treatment on pain, complications, generic health-related quality of life, time to resumption of activities of daily living and work, and cost-effectiveness. The main hypothesis is that operative treatment will result in faster recovery. Methods/design. The design of the study will be a multicenter prospective observational study of 400 patients who have sustained a humeral shaft fracture, AO type 12A or 12B. Treatment decision (i.e., operative or non-operative) will be left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Critical elements of treatment will be registered and outcome will be monitored at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Secondary outcome measures are the Constant score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow and shoulder joint at both sides, radiographic healing, rate of complications and (secondary) interventions, health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), time to resumption of ADL/work, and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed using univariate and multivariable analyses (including mixed effects regression analysis). The cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. Discussion. Successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Trial registration. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3617)

Reliability and Reproducibility of the OTA/AO Classification for Humeral Shaft Fractures

Objectives: This study aimed to determine interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures, and to evaluate differences between fracture types, fracture groups, and surgical specializations. Methods: Thirty observers (25 orthopaedic trauma surgeons and 5 general orthopaedic surgeons) independently classified 90 humeral shaft fractures according to the OTA/AO classification. Patients of 16 years and older were included. Periprosthetic, recurrent, and pathological fractures were excluded. Radiographs were provided in random order, and observers were blinded to clinical information. To determine intraobserver agreement, radiographs were reviewed again after 2 months in a different random order. Agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Results: Interobserver agreement for the 3 fracture types was moderate (κ = 0.60; 0.59-0.61). It was substantial for type A (κ = 0.77; 0.70-0.84) and moderate for type B (κ = 0.52; 0.46-0.58) and type C fractures (κ = 0.46; 0.42-0.50). Interobserver agreement for the 9 fracture groups was moderate (κ = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.48-0.48). Orthopaedic trauma surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture types, and general orthopaedic surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture groups. Observers classified 64% of fractures identically in both rounds. Intraobserver agreement was substantial for the 3 types (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.81) and 9 groups (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.82). Intraobserver agreement showed no differences between surgical disciplines. Conclusions: The OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures has a moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver agreement for fracture types and groups