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.