The choice of whether to perform antegrade intramedullary nailing (IMN) or plate fixation (PF) poses a conundrum for the surgeon who must strike the balance between anatomical restoration while reducing elbow and shoulder functional impairment. Most humeral middle third shaft fractures are amenable to conservative management given the considerable acceptable deformity and anatomical compensation by patients. This study is concerned with the patient reported outcomes regarding shoulder and elbow function for IMN and PF respectively.

A prospective cohort study following up all the cases treated surgically for middle third humeral fractures from 2016 to 2022 at a single centre. Telephonically an analogue pain score, an American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score for shoulder function and the Oxford Elbow score (OES) for elbow function were obtained.

One hundred and three patients met the inclusion criteria. Twenty four patients participated in the study, fifteen had IMN (62.5%) and nine had PF (37.5%.). The shoulder function outcomes showed no statistical difference with an average ASES score of sixty-six for the IMN group and sixty-nine for the PF group. Women and employed individuals expressed greater functional impairment. Hand dominance has no impact on the scores of elbow and shoulder function post operatively. The impairment of abduction score post antegrade nailing was higher in the antegrade nailing group than the plated group. The OES demonstrated greater variance in elbow function in the PF group with the IMN group expressing greater elbow disfunction.

This study confirms that treatment of middle third humerus shaft fractures by plate fixation is marginally superior to antegrade intramedullary nailing in preserving elbow function and abduction ability.

In 2019, the incidence of fractures were 178 million globally, South Africa accounting for close to 600 000 of these fractures, an 18.53% increase since 1990. South Africa does not have the public infrastructure to adequately facilitate the optimal surgical management of this burden. This forces intensive labour practices among orthopaedic surgeons, often performing complex surgeries throughout the night. There is a direct correlation between “after-hour”operations and the increase in morbidities.

A retrospective review of the orthopaedic surgical cases and orthopaedic surgical emergencies done at a tertiary institution in Johannesburg between 8th of August 2021 to 12th December 2022. The nature of the orthopaedic interventions, the date of booking of the surgical procedures, date of surgical procedures, as well as start and end time of the orthopaedic interventions were analysed.

“After-Hours” orthopaedic interventions were defined as interventions done between 16:00 and 07:00. Orthopaedic emergencies were defined as: Open fracture debridements, external Fixator insertion, arthrotomies, fasciotomies and the insertion of steinmann pins. 1483 (27.92%) of 5310 operative cases done on the emergency board were orthopaedic cases. 1098 (74.04%) hardware-related cases and 535 (36.08%) orthopaedic emergencies were done. 854 (57.58%) cases were done “After-Hours” of which 433 (29.20%) cases were done during “Dead-Hours” (23:00–07:00). Of these 433 cases, only 173 (39.95%) were true orthopaedic emergencies.

Although the proportion of emergencies done after hours were greater than during working hours, there is still a large proportion of intricate orthopaedic cases done between 16:00– 07:00 that should not be prioritized, due to an associated higher morbidity. Enhanced strategic planning is advisable in future in order to prioritize complex hardware cases during working hours, and due to the burden, prioritize minor relooks and simple skin- grafts for the latter aspects of the night. A dedicated Orthopaedic Trauma theatre is recommended.