Management of humeral impending or pathological fractures with intramedullary nailing: reaming versus non reaming technique-a retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: To compare reamed intramedullary nailing (RIM) versus un-reamed intramedullary nailing (URIM) for the treatment of impending and pathological fractures of the humeral shaft in terms of 24-h postoperative pain, blood transfusion requirements, surgical time, surgical complications, medical complications, length of stay and consolidation rates.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study between January 2013 and December 2018 was conducted. Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were used to detect differences within the two study groups. Multiple linear regression was done to adjust for possible confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients (33 RIM vs. 20 URIM) underwent humeral nailing. Fifteen (28%) were impending fractures (7 RIM vs. 8 URIM). Multiple myeloma (49%) and metastatic carcinoma (39.6%) were the most common etiologies. Pain score (5.13 ± 0.68 RIM vs. 6.78 ± 0.62 URIM; p = 0.082) and total dose of opioids (33.125 ± 27.6 RIM vs. 33.3 ± 22.28 URIM; p = 0.462) showed similar results. Blood transfusion was more prevalent within RIM group (34.48% RIM vs. 20% URIM; p = 0.044) with a clinical tendency of higher blood loss (207.86 ± 150.83RIM vs. 127.00 ± 179.98 URIM; p = 0.092). There was a consolidation rate of 71.05% (27/38) with no statistical difference (73.08% (19/26) RIM vs. 66.67% (8/12) URIM; p = 0.685).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests possible benefit of URIM in terms of less blood transfusions with no difference in consolidation rates. Even though without significance, a tendency to less blood loss, less events of systemic complication and lower length of stay was observed with URIM. Despite its limitations, this study can be used to design future prospective ventures that quantify patient-reported outcomes and provide more clear evidence.