Acta Ortopédica Mexicana

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board

>Journals >Acta Ortopédica Mexicana >Year 2005, Issue s1

Reyes-Saravia GA
Complications of surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures managed with a UHN pin: comparison of antegrade versus retrograde insertion
Acta Ortop Mex 2005; 19 (s1)

Language: Inglés
References: 25
Page: 22-27
PDF: 4. Kb.

Full text


Objective. To describe the complications associated to the surgical management of humeral shaft fractures with a UHN pin using retrograde versus antegrade insertion. Material and methods. A retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study of 22 patients with a humeral shaft fracture managed with a UHN pin between July 1, 1998 and July 30, 2001. Nine patients underwent antegrade insertion and 13 patients underwent retrograde insertion. Perioperative and late complications with both techniques are assessed. Evaluation parameters include bone healing and functional outcome. Results. The highest intraoperative complication rate occurred with the antegrade insertion in 3 cases with added shaft fracture. Four cases (44.4%) with the antegrade approach and 3 cases (23%) with the retrograde approach required a second surgery due to nonunion. One case had a circumflex nerve injury and one case had a radial nerve injury with the retrograde approach. There were no differences in the functional outcome of the two groups. Conclusions. The highest complication rate occurred with the antegrade approach. Complications are more likely related to surgical technique failures than to the implant or the approach used.

Key words: humeral fracture, shaft, intramedullary nailing, complications.


  1. Crenshaw AH Campbell: Cirugía Ortopédica, 9a. Edición, 1998; tomo 3: 2296-2299.

  2. Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willeneger H: Manual de Osteosíntesis. Tercera edición 1993 pp. 1-78, 42-445.

  3. Orozco R, Sales JM, Videla M: Atlas de osteosíntesis fracturas de los huesos largos. 1ª Edición 1998 pp. 9-27.

  4. Flinkkila T, Ristiniemi J, Hamalainen M: Nonunion after intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. J Trauma 2001; 50(3): 540-544.

  5. Rommens PM, Blum J et al: Retrograde Nailing of humeral shaft fractures. Clin Orthop 1998; (350): 26-39.

  6. Blum J, Machemer H Baumgart F, Schlegel u, Wahl D, Rommens PM: Biomechanical comparison of bending and torsional Properties in retrograde intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. Trauma 1999; 13(5): 344-350.

  7. Schmidt AH, Tampleman DC et al: Antegrade intramedullary nailing of the humerus complicated by heteropic ossification of the deltoid: a case report. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15(1): 69-80.

  8. Farragos ArF, Schemitsch EH, Mekee MD: Complications of intramedullary nailing for fracture of the humeral shaft: a review. J Orthop Trauma 1999; 13(4): 258-267.

  9. Blum J, Janzing H, Gahr R, Largendorff HS, Rommens PM: Clinical performance of a new medullary humeral nail: antegrade versus retrograde insertion. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15(5): 342-349.

  10. Brien WW, Gellman H, Becker V, Garland DE, Waters RL, Wiss DA: Management of fractures of the humerus in patients who have an injury of the ipsilateral brachial plexus. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72-(8): 1208-1210.

  11. Brumback RJ, Bosse MJ, Poka A, Burgess AR: Intramedullary stabilization of humeral shaft fractures in patients with multiple trauma. J Bone Joint Surg 1986; 68-(7): 960-969.

  12. Enciclopedia Médico-Quirúrgica Aparato Locomotor, Tomo 5 :1-18.

  13. Chiu FY, Chen CM, et al: et al: Closed humeral Shaft Fractures: A prospective Evaluation of the surgical treatment. Trauma 1997; 43(6): 947-957.

  14. Gallagher JE, Keogh P, Black J: Humeral medullary nailing a new implant. Injury 1988; 19(4): 254-256.

  15. Ikpeme JO: Intramedullary interlocking nailing for humeral fractures: experiences with Russell-Taylor humeral nail. Injury 1994; 25(7): 447-445.

  16. Ingman AM, Waters OH: et al: Locked Intramedullary Nailing of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Implant desing, surgical technique, and clinical results J Bone Joint Surg 1994; 76(1): 23-29.

  17. Kumta SM, Quintos AD et al: Closed retrograde nailing of pathological humeral fractures. Orthop 2002; 26(2): 17-19.

  18. Lin J, Hou SM, et al: Anatomic considerations of locked humeral nailing. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1999; (368):247-254.

  19. Martinez AA, Herrera A, Cuenca J: Good results with unreamed nail and bone grafting for humeral nonunion: a retrospective study of 21 patients. Act Orthop Scand 2002; 73(3): 273-276.

  20. Robinson CM, Bell KM, et al: Locked nailing of humeral shaft Fractures Experience in Edinburgh over two-year period. J Bone Joint Surg 1992; 74-B(4): 558-562.

  21. Scheerlinck T, Hardelberg F: Functional outcome after intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures: comparison between retrograde Marchetti-Vicenzi and undreamed AO antegrade nailing. J Trauma 2002; 52(1): 60-71.

  22. Setter FH: Sistema músculo – esquelético. Anatomía 1era. Edición 1993. Tomo 8.3 pp. 31-49.

  23. Strothman DC, Varecka T, Templeman D, Bechtold J: Retrograde Nailing of humeral shaft fracture: a biomechanical study of its effects on the strength of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2000; 14(2): 101-104.

  24. Wallny T, Westermann K, et al: Functional Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures: Indications and Results. Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma 1997; 11(4): 283-287.

  25. Zinman C, Norman D, et al: External fixation for severe open fractures of the humerus caused by missiles. Orthop Trauma 1997; 11(7): 536-539

>Journals >Acta Ortopédica Mexicana >Year 2005, Issue s1

· Journal Index 
· Links 

Copyright 2019