Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Outcome of humeral shaft fractures treated by functional cast brace

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Functional brace application for isolated humeral shaft fracture persistently yields good results. Nonunion though uncommon involves usually the proximal third shaft fractures. Instead of polyethylene bivalve functional brace four plaster sleeves wrapped and molded with little more proximal extension expected to prevent nonunion of proximal third fractures. Periodic compressibility of the cast is likely to yield a better result. This can be applied on the 1st day of the presentation as an outpatient basis. Comprehensive objective scoring system befitting for fracture humeral shaft is a need.

Materials and Methods: Sixty six (male = 40, female = 26) unilateral humeral shaft fractures of mean age 34.4 years (range 11–75 years) involving 38 left and 28 right hands were included in this study during April 2008 to December 2012. Fractures involved proximal (n = 18), mid (n = 35) and distal (n = 13) of humerus. Transverse, oblique, comminuted and spiral orientations in 18, 35 and 13 patients respectively. One had segmental fracture and three had a pathological fracture with cystic bone lesion. Mechanisms of injuries as identified in this study were road traffic accidents 57.6% (n = 38), fall 37.9% (n = 25). 12.1% (n = 8) had radial nerve palsy 7.6% (n = 5) had Type I open fracture. Four plaster strips of 12 layers and 5–7.5 cm broad depending on the girth of arm were prepared. Arm was then wrapped with single layer compressed cotton. Lateral and medial strips were applied and then after molding anterior and posterior strips were applied in such a way that permits full elbow range of motion and partial abduction of the shoulder. Care was taken to prevent adherence of one strip with other except in the proximal end. Limb was then put in loose collar and cuff sling intermittently allowing active motion of the elbow ROM and pendular movement of the shoulder. Weekly tightening of the cast by fresh layers of bandage over the existing cast brace continued.

Results: The results were assessed using 100 point scoring system where union allotted 30 points and 60 points allotted for angulations (10), elbow motion (10), shoulder abduction (10), shortening (5), rotation (5), absence of infection (10), absence of nerve palsy during treatment (10). Remaining 10 points were allotted for five items with two points each. They were the absence of skin sore, absence of vascular problem, absence of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), recovery of paralyzed nerve during injury and recovery of paralyzed nerve during treatment. Results were considered excellent with 90 and above, good with 80–89, fair with 70–79 and poor below 70 point. Results at 6 months were excellent in 43.94% (n = 29), good in 42.42% (n = 28), fair in 9.1% (n = 6), poor in 4.55% (n = 3). Union took place in 98.48% (n = 65) with an average of 10.3 weeks (range 6–16 weeks). 87.5% (n = 7) paralyzed radial nerve recovered. All wounds healed. Four patients had transient skin problem. One patient with mid shaft fracture had nonunion due to the muscle interposition.

Conclusion: Modified functional cast brace is one of the options in treatment for humeral shaft fractures as it can be applied on the 1st day of the presentation in most of the situations. Simple objective scoring system was useful particularly in uneducated patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Muller ME, Nazarian S, Coch P, Schatzker JA. Comprehensive Classification of Fracture of Long Bones. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1990.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Carroll EA, Schweppe M, Langfitt M, Miller AN, Halvorson JJ. Management of humeral shaft fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012;20:423–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breasted JH. The Edwin Smith Papyrus. Chicago: University of Chicago press; 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Von Hansman bis Ilisarow. Plate osteosynthesis and its comparison with other methods. In: Wolter D, Zimmer W, editors. Adult Humeral Interlocking Nailing. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1991. p. 158–66.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Canale S T, Beaty J H. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedic. 11th ed., Ch. 54. Elsevier Mosby: 2007;. p. 3389.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schweiberer L, Betz A, Rilger P, Wilker D. Bilanz der konservativen und operative knochenbehandlung–Obere extremitat (English: Comparative study of closed and open IM nailing of upper extremity). Chirurg 1982;54:226.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tan JC, Kagda FH, Murphy D, Thambiah JS, Khong KS. Minimally invasive helical plating for shaft of humerus fractures: technique and outcome. Open Orthop J 2012;6:184–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Evans PD, Conboy VB, Evans EJ. The Seidel humeral locking nail: An anatomical study of the complications from locking screws. Injury 1993;24:175–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: A new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma 1984;24:742–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kamhin M, Michaelson M, Waisbrod H. The use of external skeletal fixation in the treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft. Injury 1978;9:245–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bandi W. Indication to and technic for osteosynthesis in the shoulder. Helv Chir Acta 1964;31:89–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bleeker WA, Nijsten MW, ten Duis HJ. Treatment of humeral shaft fractures related to associated injuries. A retrospective study of 237 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1991;62:148–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarmiento A, Kinman PB, Galvin EG, Schmitt RH, Phillips JG. Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59:596–601.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Papasoulis E, Drosos GI, Ververidis AN, Verettas DA. Functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures. A review of clinical studies. Injury 2010;41:e21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sarmiento A, Horowitch A, Aboulafia A, Vangsness CT Jr. Functional bracing for comminuted extra-articular fractures of the distal third of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:283–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Koch PP, Gross DF, Gerber C. The results of functional (Sarmiento) bracing of humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:143–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pehlivan O. Functional treatment of the distal third humeral shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002;122:390–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhalla R, Narang TS, Lobo LH. Functional brace treatment of the fractures of the shaft of the humerus. Indian J Orthop 1982;16:9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mavani DP, Johari AN, Thakkar AP, Vengsarkar SS, Shah SV. Functional brace for the fractures of the humeral shaft. Indian J Ortho 1986;20:192–96.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Denard A Jr, Richards JE, Obremskey WT, Tucker MC, Floyd M, Herzog GA. Outcome of nonoperative vs operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: A retrospective study of 213 patients. Orthopedics 2010;33: doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100625-16.

  21. Shao YC, Harwood P, Grotz MR, Limb D, Giannoudis PV. Radial nerve palsy associated with fractures of the shaft of the humerus: A systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:1647–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:587–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leggin B, Iannotti J. Shoulder outcome measurement. In: Iannotti JP, Williams GR, editors. Disorders of the Shoulder: Diagnosis and Management. Phaladelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1999. p. 1024–40.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Constant C, Murley A. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985;214:160–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McKee MD, Seiler JG, Jupiter JB. The application of the limited contact dynamic compression plate in the upper extremity: An analysis of 114 consecutive cases. Injury 1995;26:661–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jitendra Nath Pal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pal, J.N., Biswas, P., Roy, A. et al. Outcome of humeral shaft fractures treated by functional cast brace. IJOO 49, 408–417 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.159619

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.159619

Key words

MeSH terms

Navigation