Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating humeral shaft fractures in adults

  1. Maurits W Gosler1,*,
  2. Mark Testroote1,
  3. JW Morrenhof2,
  4. Heinrich MJ Janzing3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 18 JAN 2012

Assessed as up-to-date: 24 OCT 2011

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008832.pub2


How to Cite

Gosler MW, Testroote M, Morrenhof JW, Janzing HMJ. Surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating humeral shaft fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD008832. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008832.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Viecuri Medical Centre of Northern Limburg, Department of Surgery and Orthopaedic Surgery, Venlo, Netherlands

  2. 2

    VieCuri Medical Centre for Noord-Limburg, Department of Orthopaedics, Venlo, Netherlands

  3. 3

    VieCuri Medical Centre of Northern Limburg, Department of Surgery, Venlo, Limburg, Netherlands

*Maurits W Gosler, Department of Surgery and Orthopaedic Surgery, Viecuri Medical Centre of Northern Limburg, Tegelseweg 210, Venlo, 5912BL, Netherlands. mauritsgosler@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 18 JAN 2012

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

Fractures of the shaft of the humerus account for 1% to 3% of all fractures in adults (Court-Brown 2006). Based on a study of 401 humeral shaft fractures in Sweden, Ekholm 2006 reported an annual incidence of 14.5 per 100,000 adults with a gradually increasing age-specific incidence from the fifth decade, reaching almost 60 per 100,000 people aged 90 to 100. Ekholm 2006 reported that 90% of fractures resulted from trauma, mainly from a simple fall (68% of total). The remaining fractures were pathological (8.5%) or peri-prosthetic (1.5%) (Ekholm 2006). The majority of humeral shaft fractures are closed fractures, where the overlying skin remains intact.

The AO classification (AO classification) or the OTA classification (OTA classification) schemes are generally used to classify the various types of humeral shaft fractures. The AO classification system describes three main categories: 'simple' fractures (type A) where the humerus shaft is broken in two, 'wedge' fractures (type B) where a wedge shaped fragment is broken away, and 'complex' (type C) multiply fragmented fractures. The fracture pattern often reflects the mechanism of injury. Direct blows to the humerus generally result in transverse or a multiple fragmented fractures, and twisting injuries generally cause oblique or spiral (with or without medial wedge) fractures. Oblique and transverse fractures can also be caused by a fall on the elbow with the arm in abduction (Zafar 2007).

Patients usually present with pain and swelling of the upper arm. Assessment of motor and sensory function and a radiograph is usually sufficient for diagnosis.

 

Description of the intervention

Traditionally, the majority of humeral shaft fractures are treated non-surgically. Non-surgical (conservative) interventions involve immobilisation of the elbow and/or shoulder joints using the sugar tong splint, plaster splints or hanging casts; or use of functional bracing such as the Sarmiento brace where the elbow and shoulder joints are not immobilised (Sarmiento 2001).

Surgical intervention involves reduction (repositioning) of the displaced bone fragments and fixing these using either a plate secured onto the bone with screws (plate fixation) or various nails. The latter are pushed through the intramedullary canal (intramedullary nails), being inserted either through the humeral head (antegrade) or above the elbow in the humeral bone (retrograde), and sometimes locked in place with an interlocking screw. A third type of fixation, external fixation, is generally reserved for the more severe types of open fractures (Gustilo grades IIIB and IIIC).

Surgical fixation of humeral shaft fractures is generally reserved for more complex and displaced fractures, and in people with associated injuries. Typical indications for surgical treatment are: type II and III Gustilo open fractures, polytrauma or high energy trauma, ipsilateral forearm fractures (floating elbow), nerve (secondary radial nerve palsy, brachial plexus injury) and serious vascular injuries, bilateral shaft fractures, segmental fractures, fractures with axial distraction, pathological fractures, and delayed or non-unions (Zafar 2007). Surgery may also be considered for patients with Parkinson's disease or with only one functional arm, and for obese patients (Toivanen 2005).

 

How the intervention might work

Conservative treatment can give good functional results. There is a great capability of the glenohumeral joint (shoulder) for adjustment to malunion or shortening. It is generally accepted that up to 3 cm of shortening and 20 to 30 degrees of varus, anterior or rotational deformity of the humerus can still result in an acceptable upper limb function (Clifford 2008). However, there is still a risk of non-union, which has been reported in one in 10 conservatively treated patients (Flinkkila 2004), and of complications and functional impairments arising from immobilisation or restricted mobility of the elbow and shoulder from casts and braces.

Surgical fixation of the repositioned fractured bone keeps the bone fragments in place while the fracture heals. It should allow early mobilisation and rehabilitation to take place. However, surgery has a higher risk of complications both during and after the operation. In an article on operative treatment, Cole 2007 reported incidences of patients with post-operative complications; this included up to 7% with non-union, up to 6% with infection, and up to 5% with radial nerve palsy. Implant-related complications resulting in fixation failure also occur. For example, screws can pull out of bone or break, and rotational instability of intramedullary nails can result in non-union (Flinkkila 2004).

 

Why it is important to do this review

While most fractures of the humeral shaft will heal with non-surgical treatment, the results are not always satisfactory. Although there are some hard indications for surgical treatment (for which surgery is necessary), most indications are relative and there is variation in practice. Increasingly these fractures occur in older adults, for whom the indications for surgery may differ. For example, the classic non-surgical treatment with functional bracing works on the principles of active muscle contraction, but may be less effective in older people who have less muscle mass. With this review we hoped to obtain a clearer insight in the indications for conservative and surgical treatment, especially in the elderly.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

To assess and compare the effects of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating non-pathological fractures of the humeral shaft in adults.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

All randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised (method of allocating participants to a treatment which is not strictly random; e.g. by date of birth, hospital record number, alternation) controlled trials that compare surgical with non-surgical interventions for treating humeral shaft fractures in adults were considered for inclusion.

 

Types of participants

Adults (usually people aged at least 18 years) with a humeral shaft fracture. We excluded trials specifically focused on treating people with a primary bone disease (e.g. fibrous dysplasia), pathological fractures (from metastatic cancer) or peri-prosthetic fractures. Trials including children or patients with primary bone diseases or pathological fractures were excluded unless separate data were provided for adults with non-pathological fractures or the proportion of children or adults with primary bone diseases or pathological fractures was small (< 5%).

 

Types of interventions

We included surgical and non-surgical interventions for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures in adults. Surgical interventions include intramedullary nailing, plate fixation and external fixation. Conservative (non-surgical) interventions include sugar tong splint, plaster splints, hanging casts, or functional bracing such as the Sarmiento brace.

We excluded trials comparing different methods of surgical treatment alone, or different methods of non-surgical treatment alone.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

  • Functional assessment, including generic and upper-limb specific validated clinical scores (e.g. DASH (Upper Extremity Collaborative Group 1996)), and patient derived health related quality of life measures (e.g. SF36)
  • Serious adverse events including complications (e.g. infection, non-union, radial nerve palsy) generally requiring secondary procedures (e.g. an operation)

 

Secondary outcomes

  • Return to activities (including sport and work)
  • Other complications
  • Range of motion
  • Pain (visual analogue scale)
  • Patient satisfaction, including with cosmetic result
  • Constant score (Constant 1987)

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011 Issue 10), MEDLINE (1948 to October week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to week 42, 2011). We also searched Current Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed trials. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on publication language.

In MEDLINE, the subject specific search strategy was combined with the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomised trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (Lefebvre 2009) (see Appendix 1). This strategy was modified for use in The Cochrane Library and EMBASE (see Appendix 1).

 

Searching other resources

We searched the references lists of articles for relevant studies. We searched congress abstracts for relevant studies and contacted local experts.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two authors (MG and MT) independently selected and assessed potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.

 

Data extraction and management

Should trials be included in future, two authors (MG and MT) will independently complete a pre-piloted data collection form for each included trial. One author (MG) will enter the data into RevMan. Data entry will be checked by MT.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two authors (MG and MT) will independently assess the risk of bias of individual studies using the most up-to-date version of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool (currently, Higgins 2011). Arbitration will be by a third reviewer (HJ). This tool incorporates assessment of randomisation (sequence generation and allocation concealment), blinding (participants and personnel, and outcome assessors), completeness of outcome data, selection of outcomes reported and other sources of bias, such as major imbalances in key baseline characteristics. We will assess the risk of bias associated with a) blinding and b) completeness of outcomes separately for patient-reported outcomes and objective outcomes.

 

Measures of treatment effect

We will calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we will calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals unless pooling data from studies using different scales, in which case we will use standardised mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

 

Unit of analysis issues

Though the unit of randomisation in these trials is usually the individual patient, trials including people with bilateral fractures may present results for fractures or limbs rather than individual patients. Where such unit of analysis issues arise and appropriate corrections have not been made, we will consider presenting the data for such trials where the disparity between the units of analysis and randomisation is small. Where data are pooled, we will perform a sensitivity analysis to examine the effects of excluding incorrectly reported trials from the analysis.

 

Dealing with missing data

We will try to contact trial authors where there are missing data. Where possible, we will perform intention-to-treat analyses to include all people randomised to the intervention groups. Unless missing standard deviations can be derived from standard errors or confidence interval data, we will not assume values in order to present these in the analyses.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

Heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of the forest plot (analysis) along with consideration of the Chi² test for heterogeneity and the I² statistic (Higgins 2003).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We will explore publication bias using a funnel plot if data from over 10 trials are available for pooling.

 

Data synthesis

If considered appropriate, results of comparable groups of trials will be pooled. Initially we will use the fixed-effect model and 95% confidence intervals. Where there is clear and major heterogeneity, we will check the results using the random-effects model and consider whether presenting these results is more appropriate.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

If there is heterogeneity between groups we will attempt to explore the causes using subgroup and sensitivity analysis. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses based on age (under 50 years; 50 or over); different treatment modalities (e.g. plate; nail; external fixation); and by fracture type.

We chose 50 years as a cut-off for age because this may serve to separate out two categories of patients, for which the decision to operate and the type of intervention chosen may be influenced by different factors. Factors in younger patients include open fractures, neurological and vascular injuries and complex fracture patterns. Older patients mostly have a low-energy trauma, less muscle mass and osteoporosis; factors again that may influence treatment decisions.

 

Sensitivity analysis

Where possible, we plan to perform sensitivity analyses examining various aspects of trials and review methodology, including the effects of missing data, of the inclusion of trials with inadequate allocation concealment and of trials only reported in abstracts.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Description of studies

See: Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of ongoing studies.

See: Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of ongoing studies.

 

Results of the search

We screened 532 citations up to October 2011, from the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group's Specialised Register (95 citations), MEDLINE (132 citations), EMBASE (269 citations) and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (36 citations). We found six potentially eligible completed studies, all of which were excluded.

Our searches of trial registers identified three potentially eligible ongoing trials, two (Berry; Matsunaga) of which are randomised and one (Pelet), which is not randomised and is now excluded.

 

Included studies

There are no included studies in this review.

 

Excluded studies

Seven studies were excluded for reasons stated in the Characteristics of excluded studies. Five studies were retrospective studies (Denard 2010; Jawa 2006; Klestil 1997; Osman 1998; Wallny 1997). One was a prospective study without randomisation (Nast-Kolb 1991), and one is an ongoing trial without randomisation (Pelet).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

There are no included studies in this review.

 

Effects of interventions

There are no included studies in this review.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

Our extensive search failed to identify any completed randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials testing the effects of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for non-pathological fractures of the humeral shaft in adults. Currently, the published literature consists of retrospective studies and one prospective non-randomised study. It may prove to be very challenging to design a randomised controlled trial comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment with enough statistical power to provide definitive evidence. However, we have identified two ongoing studies (Berry; Matsunaga) that, should these be successful, will inform this question.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice between surgical and non-surgical interventions for treating humeral shaft fractures in adults.

 
Implications for research

There is a need for good quality evidence to inform on the use of surgery for humeral shaft fractures in adults. Humeral shaft fractures are relatively uncommon, therefore multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed. The trials should have good follow-up and should at least record functional assessment, quality of life measures and serious adverse events including complications. While the two ongoing trials on this topic appear to be single-centre studies, It is likely that their results will help inform practice in due course.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

We acknowledge the contribution of Dianne C de Visser to the development of the review.

We would like to thank Dr Helen Handoll and Mr Matthew Costa for valuable comments on drafts of the protocol, and Dr Helen Handoll for her help with the review. We are grateful to Dr Joanne Elliott for helping to develop the search strategy. We would also like to acknowledge the help of Amy Kavanagh and Lindsey Elstub from the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

This review has no analyses.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. Search strategies

 

Medline (OvidSP)

1     Humeral Fractures/ (5409)
2     Humerus/ (7083)
3     Fractures, Bone/ (42969)
4     exp Fracture Fixation/ (42074)
5     Fracture Healing/ (7671)
6     or/3-5 (79293)
7     and/2,6 (548)
8     (humor* and fracture*).tw. (6198)
9     or/1,7-8 (8451)
10     (shaft or midshaft or diaphys*).tw. (19708)
11     and/9-10 (1390)
12     randomized controlled trial.pt. (320511)
13     controlled clinical trial.pt. (83807)
14     randomized.ab. (235709)
15     placebo.ab. (133714)
16     drug therapy.fs. (1509763)
17     randomly.ab. (172716)
18     trial.ab. (244314)
19     groups.ab. (1135675)
20     or/12-19 (2876815)
21     exp animals/ not humans.sh. (3705108)
22     20 not 21 (2452991)
23     and/11,22 (132)

 

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Library)

#1 MeSH descriptor Humeral Fractures, this term only (55)
#2 MeSH descriptor Humerus, this term only (48)
#3 MeSH descriptor Fractures, Bone, this term only (951)
#4 MeSH descriptor Fracture Fixation explode all trees (930)
#5 MeSH descriptor Fracture Healing, this term only (295)
#6 (#3 OR #4 OR #5) (1841)
#7 (#2 AND #6) (5)
#8 (humer* and fracture*):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials (147)
#9 (#1 OR #7 OR #8)  (168)
#10 (shaft or midshaft or diaphys*):ti,ab,kw  (582)
#11 (#9 AND #10) (36)

 

EMBASE (OvidSP)

1     humerus fracture/ (6589)
2     humerus/ (6705)
3     fracture/ (48020)
4     exp fracture treatment/ (68133)
5     fracture healing/ (13041)
6     or/3-5 (114303)
7     and/2,6 (866)
8     (humer* and fracture*).tw. (6959)
9     or/1,7-8 (9582)
10     (shaft or midshaft or diaphys*).tw. (21281)
11     and/9-10 (1572)
12     exp Randomized Controlled trial/ (291038)
13     exp Double Blind Procedure/ (101258)
14     exp Single Blind Procedure/ (14323)
15     exp Crossover Procedure/ (31003)
16     Controlled Study/ (3612833)
17     or/12-16 (3681329)
18     ((clinical or controlled or comparative or placebo or prospective$ or randomi#ed) adj3 (trial or study)).tw. (566387)
19     (random$ adj7 (allocat$ or allot$ or assign$ or basis$ or divid$ or order$)).tw. (137803)
20     ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj7 (blind$ or mask$)).tw. (133137)
21     (cross?over$ or (cross adj1 over$)).tw. (56933)
22     ((allocat$ or allot$ or assign$ or divid$) adj3 (condition$ or experiment$ or intervention$ or treatment$ or therap$ or control$ or group$)).tw. (172015)
23     or/18-22 (849381)
24     or/17,23 (4089880)
25     limit 24 to human (2460476)
26     and/11,25 (269) 

 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 11, 2010
Review first published: Issue 1, 2012

 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

Review draft: MG
Independent study selection and assessment: MG and MT
Provided feedback on interim drafts and contributed to the final manuscript: JM and HJ
Guarantor of the review: MG

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

None known.

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

The absence of included trials meant that many of the methods detailed in the protocol could not be implemented. We stated our intention to use the most up-to-date risk of bias tool in a future update.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. References to ongoing studies
  19. Additional references
Denard 2010 {published data only}
  • Denard A Jr, Richards JE, Obremskey WT, Tucker MC, Floyd M, Herzog GA. Outcome of nonoperative vs operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study of 213 patients. Orthopedics 2010;33(8):552.
Jawa 2006 {published data only}
  • Jawa A, McCarty P, Doornberg J, Harris M, Ring D. Extra-articular distal-third diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. A comparison of functional bracing and plate fixation. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume 2006;88(11):2343-47.
  • Jawa A, Ring DC, McCarthy P, Harris MB, Jones AL, Schmidt AH. Distal third diaphyseal humerus fractures: Operative vs. non-operative treatment [abstract]. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting; 2006 Mar 22-26; Chicago 2006.
Klestil 1997 {published data only}
  • Klestil T, Rangger C, Kathrein A, Brenner E, Beck E. The conservative and surgical therapy of traumatic humeral shaft fractures [Konservative und operative Therapie traumatischer Oberarmschaftbruche]. Chirurg 1997;68(11):1132-6.
Nast-Kolb 1991 {published data only}
  • Nast-Kolb D, Knoefel WT, Schweiberer L. The treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Results of a prospective AO multicenter study [Die behandlung der oberarmschaftfraktur, ergebnisse einer prospektiven ao-sammelstudie]. Unfallchirurgie 1991;94(9):447-54.
Osman 1998 {published data only}
  • 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. Annales de Chirurgie de la Main et du Membre Superieur 1998;17(3):195-206.
Pelet {unpublished data only}
  • Pelet S. Conservative treatment versus the surgical treatment of diaphyseal fractures of humerus. ClinicalTrials.gov http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01116349 (accessed 04/10/2011) 2010.
Wallny 1997 {published data only}
  • Wallny T, Sagebiel C, Westerman K, Wagner UA, Reimer M. Comparative results of bracing and interlocking nailing in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. International Orthopaedics 1997;21(6):374-9.

References to ongoing studies

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. References to ongoing studies
  19. Additional references
Berry {unpublished data only}
  • Berry GK. Operative and nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. ClinicalTrials.gov http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00878319 (accessed 04/10/2011) 2009.
Matsunaga {unpublished data only}
  • Matsunaga FT. Conservative versus surgical interventions for treatment of the humeral shaft fractures in adults. Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN24835397 (accessed 04/10/11) 2010.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. References to ongoing studies
  19. Additional references
Clifford 2008
  • Clifford R. Humeral Shaft Fractures. Wheeless' Textbook of Orthopaedics www.wheelessonline.com (accessed 2008).
Cole 2007
Constant 1987
Court-Brown 2006
Ekholm 2006
  • Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume 2006;88(11):1469-73.
Flinkkila 2004
  • Flinkkilä T. Intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. Academic Dissertation. Oulun yliopisto, 2004.
Higgins 2003
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Lefebvre 2009
  • Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 (updated September 2009). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Sarmiento 2001
  • Sarmiento A, Waddell JP, Latta LL. Diaphyseal humeral fractures: treatment options. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume 2001;83(10):1566-79.
Toivanen 2005
Upper Extremity Collaborative Group 1996
  • Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Measuring disability and symptoms of the upper limb: A validation study of the DASH questionnaire. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1996;39(9):112.
Zafar 2007
  • Zafar MS, Porter K. Humeral shaft fractures: a review of literature. Trauma 2007;9(4):273-82.