Humeral shaft fractures represent 1-3% of all fractures and 20% of the humeral fractures. These fractures have historically been treated mainly conservatively with good results. Recent development in fracture treatment and findings that certain fracture types are more prone to non-union and bracing-related functional problems of adjacent joints are somewhat common have caused increasing interest in treating these fractures surgically. Return to activities is also considered to be quicker among surgically treated patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Patients with an unilateral humeral shaft fracture who are willing to participate in the study after informed consent are randomly assigned to two different treatment methods: 1. Surgical treatment with an open reduction and internal fixation with a 4,5mm locking plate. 2. Conservative treatment with functional bracing The randomization is done using blocked randomization (block sizes are not known by the enrolling or assigning physician) and stratification is done according to fracture type (AO-OTA type A vs. type B/C) and radial nerve status (total/subtotal motor palsy vs. no palsy). Standard follow-up visits at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months are arranged. Later follow-up visits are arranged at 2, 5 and 10 years for the study purpose. Patients fill evaluation forms and clinical and radiological assessments are made. The physiotherapist doing objective functional measurements is blinded to treatment method. Both study groups receive physiotherapy after the initial treatment.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
82
Conservative treatment with functional brace.
Operative treatment with open reduction and internal fixation using 4,5mm locking compression plate.
Physiotherapy is arranged to both groups at 3 and 9 wks.
Töölö Hospital, Helsinki University Central Hospital
Helsinki, Finland
Tampere University Hospital
Tampere, Finland
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH)
Time frame: at 12 months
Subjective assessment of the function of the upper extremity
Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Constant Score
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Elbow ROM
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Health-related quality of life (15D)
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Complications
Incidence of complications (i.e. non-union, malunion, re-fracture, reoperation, infection and iatrogenic radial palsy) is recorded and compared between study groups.
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Cost-effectiveness
Quality-adjusted life years/months measured as a change in 15D tool, pain-NRS and other outcome measures.
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Subjective assessment of the function of the upper extremity
Likert Scale 1-7
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Subjective assessment of the function of the elbow
Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10
Time frame: 6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH)
Time frame: at 6 wks, 3, 6 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Pain at rest and in activity, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10
Time frame: at 6 wks, 3, 6 mo, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Percentage of patients with acceptable symptom state (PASS)
Time frame: at 6 wks, 3, 6 mo, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.