Treating multifocal humerus fractures: A comparison between the mipo technique and intramedullary nailing

• Published in: Injury Vol. 53; no. 10; pp. 3332 - 3338
• Main Authors: Ortega-Yago, A, Balfagón-Ferrer, A, Barrés-Carsí, M, Bas-Hermida, JL
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01-10-2022
• ISSN: 0020-1383; 1879-0267
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.07.049

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVEProximal humerus fractures with metaphysodiaphyseal extension represent a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon due to their reduced incidence and the difficulty in the treatment decision. These can be treated with an intramedullary nail or using the MIPO technique, associating different advantages and complications depending on the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare metaphyseal-diaphyseal fractures of the humerus treated with antegrade intramedullary nailing and those operated using the MIPO technique to see if there were significant differences in terms of functional, clinical, and radiological results. MATERIAL AND METHODSretrospective, analytical and unicentric review of 29 patients with proximal fracture with metaphyseal-diaphyseal extension treated by MIPO technique and 33 patients surgically treated by antegrade intramedullary nailing (IMN) in our hospital from 2014 to 2020. Demographic, functional, radiographic and clinical data were obtained.. RESULTSNo significant differences were observed between both groups in terms of fracture mechanism (p=0.34), fracture type (p=0.13) or Maresca classification (p=0.32). Surgical time was significantly shorter in the IMN group compared to the MIPO technique (p=0.014). No significant difference was observed regarding the need for blood transfusion (p=0.32). The mean consolidation in the MIPO group was 21 weeks compared to 21 weeks in the IMN, with no significant differences between both groups (p= 0.88). No significant differences were observed between CONSTANT test at one year in the MIPO group versus the IMN group (p=0.79), nor in radial nerve palsies (p=0.28). CONCLUSIONSProximal fractures with metaphyseal-diaphyseal extension are a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon due to the infrequency, the complexity of these fractures and the fact that there is no established consensus on the ideal treatment for this type of injury. Both the MIPO technique with the Philos plate and the intramedullary nail are valid options for the treatment of these fractures, with no differences observed in terms of fracture consolidation time or in terms of functional results.