For treatment & information (Manchester UK)

Call: 01625 545071
Email: info@shoulderdoc.co.uk

Humeral Braces

Kindly provided by 3M

Introduction
There is general agreement that operative treatments of fractures of the mid-shaft of the humerus have a high complication rate.
Non-union, nerve injuries and infection are often seen.
Management of these fractures with a functional brace gives a high rate of union and the functional result is good, especially in older people.
The open treatment of fractures of the distal third of the humerus is advocated.
There is a belief that an open treatment is necessary to obtain an acceptable e.g. an anatomical alignment.
The most common problem in the conservative treatment is the difficulty in controlling angulation.
In distal humeral fractures good results are described with a functional brace.
There are several advantages when a humeral brace is made of Soft Cast.
In older people the skin looses some of its elasticity which may cause some problems when a rigid brace is applied.
However, the function of the brace is only then optimal when the brace is tightly closed, to compress the surrounding tissues.
The rigidity of the traditional materials might also cause pressure problems on prominent humeral condyles.
The result of both the problems described is that the patient loosens the brace which results in a decreased functionality.
A humeral brace with an overlap made of Soft Cast solves these problems.
The softness of Soft Cast is barely noticed on the humeral condyles.
More important is the possibility of applying the brace tightly in a comfortable way.
This gives the brace optimal function.
The fracture is supported by the surrounding soft tissue and this support is increased during activities.
There is no need for a splint reinforcement in a humeral brace.
In some cases, e.g. when the fracture is located in the proximal third of the humerus, a proximal prolonged version of the brace can be used.
The short and long humeral braces are described.
Also a humeral brace is described which can be used in the initial treatment or in the treatment of fractures in the distal third of the humerus.
This brace is similar to the hinged long arm cast as described in that chapter with the only difference that a full range of motion is allowed in the wrist.

Humeral shaft fractures
In 1977, Sarmiento et al. presented the results of fifty-one humeral shaft fractures treated with a functional brace and conclude that the early introduction of functional activity to the entire extremity appears to provide a desirable physiological environment conducive to rapid healing.
Apart from the difficulties encountered in carrying out long-term follow-up studies, reported in Sarmiento et al.'s long-term follow-up review of 620 of 922 patients with humerus fractures, the authors conclude that functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis is associated with a high rate of union, particularly when used for closed fractures.
The residual angular deformities are usually functionally and aesthetically acceptable.
McCormack et al. suggest that open reduction and internal fixation with a dynamic compression plate remains the best treatment for unstable fractures of the shaft of the humerus.
Fixation by intramedullary nailing may be indicated for specific situations, but is technically more demanding and has a higher rate of complications.
Farragos et al. reviewed the literature and conclude that the attractive theoretical advantages of locking humeral nails have not been borne out in clinical studies.
Complications such as shoulder pain, delayed union or nonunion, fracture about the implant, iatrogenic fracture comminution, and the difficulty in the reconstruction of failures have diminished their usefulness.
The precise role of locking nails in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures has yet to be defined.
At present, open reduction and compression plating remain the treatment of choice for humeral shaft fractures that require operative intervention.
Wallny et al. treated 87 patients with a functional brace and performed a review to determine the effectiveness of the treatment. Eighty-six percent of the follow-up group showed no restrictions in the movement of their shoulder and elbow joints.
On the basis of subjective criteria, 95% of the patients were content with the functional treatment, 65% claimed to be pain free in their daily activities and at work, and 35% felt pain only when doing vigorous activities or heavy physical work.
Although malposition with an angulation greater than 10 degrees was observed in ten patients (12.6%), functional outcome was good or excellent in two thirds of the cases followed up.
Klestil et al. evaluated sixty-three patients with humeral shaft fractures clinically and radiographically 18 months after injury; 27 patients were treated surgically and 36 patients conservatively.
They concluded that the results of these two comparable groups suggest that conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures is superior regarding mobility of the shoulder and elbow, strength, the incidence of neurological complications, pain, subjective rating and cosmesis and found no differences on roentgenograms between the two groups.
The same authors treated a group of 8 bedridden, mentally incompetent or non-compliant patients with functional fracture bracing immediately following the initial insult with good results.
Soft Cast was used to fabricate these braces.
Also Hreckovski achieved fracture stabilisation primarily by a humeral brace, custom made from Soft Cast.
Clinically it was observed, that already within the first week of the brace treatment the pain reduced equally to the reduction of the swelling; this pain reduction motivated most of the patients to increase functional activities.
95% of the patients did not have limitation in the joint movements at the moment that the X-ray showed fracture union, and were satisfied with this treatment.
At time of union 5 patient had a limitation of 15° abduction in the shoulder compared to the unaffected shoulder.
There were no non-unions and 22 fractures healed clinically long before an union was identified on the x-rays.
During heavy physical exercises (push ups) most of the patients had no pain.
All patients in this study were treated in the out patients clinic.
When looking at cost effectiveness and patient outcome, this functional therapy showed significant benefits compared to operative interventions.

Indications
= Humeral shaft fractures.
= Extra-articular fractures of the distal third of the humerus.

Materials
= 75 cm x stockinette 7.5 cm.
= 1 roll x Soft Cast 10 cm.
= 1 roll x Soft Cast 5 cm (only for the long humeral brace).
= Straps, rivets, sports tape.


References / bibliography

Aitken GK, Rorabeck CH.
Distal humerus fractures in the adult.
Clin Orthop 1986: 207: 191-197.
Blum J, Rommens PM, Janzing H, Langendorff HS.
Retrograde nailing of humeral shaft fractures with the UHN: an international multicenter survey.
Unfallchirurg 1998: 101: 342-352.
Camden P, Nade S.
Fracture bracing the humerus.
Injury 1992: 23: 245-248.
Dowden JW.
The principle of early active movement in treating fractures of the upper extremity.
Clin Orthop 1980: 146: 4-8.
Esterhal JL, Brighton CT, Heppenstahl RB, Thrower A.
Nonunion of the humerus: clinical, roentenographic, scintigraphic and response characteristics to treatment with constant direct current stimulation of osteogenesis.
Clin Orthop 1986: 211: 228-234.
Farragos AF, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD.
Complications of intramedullary nailing for fractures of the humeral shaft: a review.
J Orthop Trauma 1999: 13: 258-267.
Foulk DA, Szabo RM.
Diaphyseal humerus fractures: natural history and occurrence of nonunion.
Orthopedics 1995: 18: 333-335.
Healy WL, White GM, Mick CA, Brooker AF, Weiland AJ.
Nonunion of the humeral shaft.
Clin Orthop 1987: 219: 206-213.
Hegelmaier C, Aprath von B.
Plate osteosynthesis of the diaphyseal humerus shaft: indications, risks, results.
Akt Traumatologie 1993: 223 36-42.
Hreckovski B.
Functional bracing of humeral fractures.
In: Schuren J. (ed). Working with Soft Cast 2. Minnesota, Mining and Manufacturing 2000: 71.
Ingman AM, Waters DA.
Locked intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures: implant design, surgical technique and clinical results.
J Bone Joint Surg 1994: 76B: 23-29.
Ippolito E, Caterini R, Scola E.
Supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: analysis at maturity of fifty-three patients treated conservatively.
J Bone Joint Surg 1986: 68A: 333-344.
Jacobson SR, Glisson RR, Urbaniak JR.
Comparison of distal humerus fracture fixation: a biomechanical study.
J South Orth Ass: (www.sma.org/soa/jsoawt97/2text.htm).
Kayser M. Muhr G, op den Winkel R, Ekkernkamp A.
Functional treatment of fractures of the humerus using the method of Sarmiento: results after 3 years' experience.
Unfallchirurg 1986: 89: 253-258.
Kelsch G, Deffner P, Ulrich C.
Clinical performance of the Seidel humeral locking nail: balance after 100 applications.
Unfallchirurg 1997: 100: 111-118.
Kinzl L, Fleischmann W.
The treatment of distal upper arm fractures.
Unfallchirurg 1991: 94: 455-460.
Klestil T, Rangger C, Kathrein A, Brenner E, Beck E.
The conservative and surgical therapy of traumatic humeral shaft fractures.
Chirurg 1997: 68: 1132-1136.
Klestil T, Rangger C, Kathrein A, Huber B, Waldegger M.
Sarmiento bracing of humeral shaft fractures: a comparative study.
SOT 1997: 20: 139-142.
Klestil T, Rangger C, Kathrein A, Seykora P, Waldegger M.
Functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures: immediate application and extension of indication.
SOT 1997: 20: 145-149.
Kuner EH, Bonnaire F, Schaeffer DJ.
Osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures by ORIF and DCP.
Chirurg 1995: 66: 1085-1091.
Leung KS, Kwan M, Wong J, Shen WY, Tsang A.
Therapeutical functional bracing in upper limb fracture dislocations.
J Orthop Trauma 1989: 2: 308-313.
Lin J, Sheng MH, Yi-Shiong H, Chao EYS.
Treatment of humeral shaft fractures by retrograde locked nailing.
Clin Orthop 1997: 342: 147-155.
Loitz D, Könnecker H, Illgner A, Reilmann H.
Retrograde intramedullary nailing in humeral fractures with new implants: analysis of 120 consecutive cases.
Unfallchirurg 1998: 101: 543-550.
McCormack RG, Brien D, Buckley RE, McKee MD, Powell J, Schemitsch EH.
Fixation of fractures of the shaft of the humerus by dynamic compression plate or intramedullary nail: a prospective randomised trial.
J Bone Joint Surg 2000: 82B: 336-339.
McMaster WC, Tivnon MC, Waugh TR.
Cast brace for the upper extremity.
Clin Orthop 1975: 109: 126-129.
Nast-Kolb D, Knoefel WT, Schweiberer L.
The treatment of humeral shaft fractures: results of a prospective AO multicenter study.
Unfallchirurg 1991: 94: 447-454.
Osman N; Touam C; Masmejean E; Asfazadourian H; Alnot JY.
Results of non-operative and operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a series of 104 cases.
Chir Main 1998: 17: 195-206.
Rangger C, Kathrein A, Klestil T.
Immediate application of fracture braces in humeral shaft fractures.
J Trauma Injury Infection Critical Care 1999: 46: 732-735.
Robinson CM, Bell KM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen.
Locked nailing of humeral shaft fractures: experience in Edinburgh over a two-year period.
J Bone Joint Surg 1992: 74B: 558-562.
Rommens PM, Verbruggen J, Broos PL.
Retograde locked nailing of humeral shaft fractures: a review of 39 patients.
J Bone Joint Surg 1995: 77B: 84-89.
Rommens PM, Verbruggen J, Broos PL
Retrograde interlocking nailing of fracture of the humeral shaft: a clinical study.
Unfallchirurg 1995: 98: 133-138.
Sarmiento A, Horowitz A, Aboulafia A, Vangsness CT.
Functional bracing for comminuted extra-articular fractures of the distal third of the humerus.
J Bone Joint Surg 1990: 72B: 283-287.
Sarmiento A, Kinman PB, Galvin EG, Schmitt RA, Philips JG.
Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus.
J Bone Joint Surg 1977: 59A: 596-601.
Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA.
Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis.
J Bone Joint Surg 2000: 82A: 478-486.
Schratz W,Wörsdörfer O, Klöckner C, Götze C.
Intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures.
Unfallchirurg 1998: 101: 12-17.
Schuren J.
Functional bracing of upper limb fractures with Soft Cast.
In: Schuren J. (ed). Working with Soft Cast 2. Minnesota, Mining and Manufacturing 2000: 67-70
Spak I.
Humeral shaft fractures: treatment with a simple hand sling.
Acta Orthop Scand 1978: 49: 234.
Wallny T, Westermann K, Sagebiel C, Peimer M, Wagner UA.
Functional treatment of humeral shaft fracture: indications and results.
J Orthop Trauma 1997: 11: 283-287.
Wallny T, Sagebiel C, Westerman K, Wagner UA, Reimer M.
Comparative results of bracing and interlocking nailing in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.
Int Orthop. 1997: 21: 374-379.
Wildburger R, Mähring M, Hofer HP.
Supraintercondylar fractures of the distal humerus: results of internal fixation: review of two consecutive series.
J Orthop Trauma 1991: 3: 301-307.
Young TB, Wallace WA.
Conservative treatment of fractures and fracture-dislocations of the upper end of the humerus.
J Bone Joint Surg 1985: 67B: 373-377.
Zagorski JB, Latta LL, Zych GA, Finnieston AR.
Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus: treatment with prefabricated braces.
J Bone Joint Surg 1988: 70A: 607-610.

HONcode

This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.

ShoulderDoc.co.uk satisfies the INTUTE criteria for quality and has been awarded 'editor's choice'.

The material on this website is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between ourselves and our patients. Full Disclaimer