Intramedullary nailing vs. open reduction-internal fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare outcomes following intramedullary nailing (IMN) vs. open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) for humeral shaft fractures. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. RCTs comparing IMN and ORIF for humeral shaft fractures were included. Clinical outcomes were compared using RevMan. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 512 patients were included. Overall, 8.4% of patients treated with IMN and 6.4% of patients treated with ORIF had nonunion (P = .57, I2 = 0%), with a significantly faster time to union with IMN (10 weeks vs. 11.9 weeks, P < .05). There was no significant difference in the rate of reoperation (11.6% in IMN group vs. 7.6% in ORIF group, P = .26) or radial nerve palsy (2.8% in IMN group vs. 4.2% in ORIF group, P = .58). A lower rate of infection was noted with IMN (1.2% vs. 5.3%, P < .05). Additionally, there was a lower operative time with IMN (61 minutes vs. 88 minutes, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The Level I evidence in the literature does not show a significant difference in rates of union, reoperation, or radial nerve palsy between IMN and ORIF for humeral shaft fractures. Overall, treatment with IMN results in a lower infection rate, less operative time, and a modestly quicker time to union. The optimal treatment strategy for humeral shaft fractures may be best informed by fracture pattern and surgeon preference.

Duke Scholars

Author Christian Pean Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Malcolm R DeBaun Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Christopher Scott Klifto Orthopaedic Surgery