Objectives. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical and non-surgical management of fractures of the proximal humerus, and to determine whether further analyses based on complexity of fracture, or the type of surgical intervention, produced disparate findings on patient outcomes. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed identifying all RCTs that compared surgical and non-surgical management of fractures of the proximal humerus. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes was performed where possible. Subgroup analysis based on the type of fracture, and a sensitivity analysis based on the type of surgical intervention, were also performed. Results. Seven studies including 528 patients were included. The overall meta-analysis found that there was no difference in clinical outcomes. However, subgroup and sensitivity analyses found improved patient outcomes for more complex fractures managed surgically. Four-part fractures that underwent surgery had improved long-term health utility scores (mean difference, MD 95% CI 0.04 to 0.28; p = 0.007). They were also less likely to result in osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis and non/malunion (OR 7.38, 95% CI 1.97 to 27.60; p = 0.003). Another significant subgroup finding was that secondary surgery was more common for patients that underwent internal fixation compared with conservative management within the studies with predominantly three-part fractures (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63; p = 0.009). Conclusion. This meta-analysis has demonstrated that differences in the type of fracture and surgical treatment result in outcomes that are distinct from those generated from analysis of all types of fracture and surgical treatments grouped together. This has important implications for clinical decision making and should highlight the need for future trials to adopt more specific inclusion criteria. Cite this article: S. Sabharwal, N. K. Patel, D. Griffiths, T. Athanasiou, C. M. Gupte, P. Reilly.
Most patients with a nightstick fracture of the
ulna are treated conservatively. Various techniques of immobilisation or
early mobilisation have been studied. We performed a systematic
review of all published randomised controlled trials and observational
studies that have assessed the outcome of these fractures following
above- or below-elbow immobilisation, bracing and early mobilisation.
We searched multiple electronic databases, related bibliographies and
other studies. We included 27 studies comprising 1629 fractures
in the final analysis. The data relating to the time to radiological
union and the rates of delayed union and nonunion could be pooled
and analysed statistically. We found that early mobilisation produced the shortest radiological
time to union (mean 8.0 weeks) and the lowest mean rate of nonunion
(0.6%). Fractures treated with above- or below-elbow immobilisation
and braces had longer mean radiological times to union (9.2 weeks,
9.2 weeks and 8.7 weeks, respectively) and higher mean rates of
nonunion (3.8%, 2.1% and 0.8%, respectively). There was no statistically
significant difference in the rate of non- or delayed union between
those treated by early mobilisation and the three forms of immobilisation
(p = 0.142 to p = 1.000, respectively). All the studies had significant
biases, but until a robust randomised controlled trial is undertaken
the best advice for the treatment of undisplaced or partially displaced
nightstick fractures appears to be early mobilisation, with a removable
forearm support for comfort as required. Cite this article:
