Introduction: Nonoperative treatment of fracture of humeral diaphysis generally has provided acceptable results. However, to achieve faster
union and early return to preinjury state along with preserving functionality and motion of adjacent joints, operative management is preferable.
Various choices of internal xation for managing these fractures exist. However, the preferred method of internal xation for these fractures
remains debatable. to compare the clinical, radiological, functional outcome Aim: of plate Osteosynthesis versus intramedullary nailing in
management of diaphyseal humerus fracture in adults. a prospective, randomized study Method: including 49 patients with diaphyseal fracture of
humerus randomized into two groups in which one group (n=29) was treated with internal xation with plate Osteosynthesis while the other group
(n=20) was treated with antegrade intramedullary nailing. Parameters examined included shoulder and elbow range of motion and evidence of
clinical and radiological union along with presence of any complication. Mean a Result: ge of the patients in the Plating group was 44.3 years while
in the Nailing group, it was 42.9 years. Mean time to radiological union in the plating was 17.6 weeks compared to 15.7 weeks in the nailing group.
Non union was seen in 6.8% of patients with plating as compared to 10% in patients treated with nail. Mean ASES score for plating group was 81.6
while for the nailing group it was 76.3.
Conclusion: For diaphyseal fracture of humerus in adults, both the treatment modalities i.e. antegrade intramedullary nailing and internal xation
with plating are almost similar with regard to functional outcome and union rate. Antegrade Intramedullary nailing has better rate of union but is
associated with signicantly increased risk of shoulder complications which may adversely affect outcome. Plating isour treatment modality of
choice for managing these fractures in view of minimal complications with optimal outcome.
Iatrogenic femoral neck fracture: an unusual cause
