• Something wrong with this record ?

Anatomické poznámky k miniinvazivní dlahové osteosyntéze proximálního humeru - kadaverózní studie
[Anatomy notes on minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus. A cadaver study]

M. Křivohlávek, S. Taller, R. Lukáš, P. Dráč

. 2014 ; 81 (1) : 63-69.

Language Czech Country Czech Republic

Document type English Abstract, Journal Article

Digital library NLK
Source

E-resources Online

NLK Free Medical Journals from 2006

Links

PubMed 24755059

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The aim of the study was to assess the average length of a proximal and a distal incision, to verify the location of the axillary nerve and to identify risk factors for nerve injury during minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During cadaver study a total of 24 implantations using the Philos angular stable plate were performed from the minimally invasive anterolateral approach. A five-hole plate inserted with the aid of new Philos aiming device was used in all cases. The plate was fixed with four screws proximally and with three screws to the diaphysis. After implantation either of the incisions were joined and the axillary nerve was exposed on the lateral side of the arm. RESULTS: The nerve was not found to be injured during plate implantation in any of the cases. The average length of the proximal incision was 56 ± 2.8 mm (52-64 mm) and that of the distal incision was 32 ± 2.5 mm (28-35 mm). The middle free part covering the axillary nerve was on average 45 ± 4.3 mm (38-54) long. The average width of the nerve was 1.9 ± 0.35 mm (1.4-2.8 mm). The average distance of the axillary nerve was 39 ± 2.9 mm (37-44 mm) from the superior facet of the greater tubercle and 53 ± 3.9 mm (48-60) from the lower edge of the acromial process. In 80% of the cases the nerve was located in the area determined for the screws going to the medial calcar region; in 20% it was over a hole for the screw directed towards the centre of humeral head. Nerve location above the first six most proximally placed screws was not recorded in any of the cases. DISCUSSION: The minimally invasive anterolateral approach is an alternative technique for osteosynthesis of proximal humerus fractures using angular stable plates. Advantages reported by a number of authors include lower incidence of avascular necrosis of the humeral head, an easier way of reduction and a better view of the rotator cuff. On the other hand, this approach is associated with a higher risk of damage to the axillary nerve. Distance of axillary nerve from acromion is very variable. It may be located in the range of 30 to 85 mm from the acromial edge. CONCLUSION: The anterolateral approach is, when respecting the anatomical position of the axillary nerve, a safe alternative to the conventional deltoideopectoral approach.

Anatomy notes on minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus. A cadaver study

Bibliography, etc.

Literatura

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15030937
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20151016071348.0
007      
ta
008      
151001s2014 xr a f 000 0|cze||
009      
AR
024    7_
$2 doi $a 10.55095/achot2014/007
035    __
$a (PubMed)24755059
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze $b eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Křivohlávek, Martin $7 xx0081916 $u Traumatologicko-ortopedické centrum se spinální jednotkou, Krajská Nemocnice Liberec
245    10
$a Anatomické poznámky k miniinvazivní dlahové osteosyntéze proximálního humeru - kadaverózní studie / $c M. Křivohlávek, S. Taller, R. Lukáš, P. Dráč
246    31
$a Anatomy notes on minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus. A cadaver study
504    __
$a Literatura
520    9_
$a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The aim of the study was to assess the average length of a proximal and a distal incision, to verify the location of the axillary nerve and to identify risk factors for nerve injury during minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During cadaver study a total of 24 implantations using the Philos angular stable plate were performed from the minimally invasive anterolateral approach. A five-hole plate inserted with the aid of new Philos aiming device was used in all cases. The plate was fixed with four screws proximally and with three screws to the diaphysis. After implantation either of the incisions were joined and the axillary nerve was exposed on the lateral side of the arm. RESULTS: The nerve was not found to be injured during plate implantation in any of the cases. The average length of the proximal incision was 56 ± 2.8 mm (52-64 mm) and that of the distal incision was 32 ± 2.5 mm (28-35 mm). The middle free part covering the axillary nerve was on average 45 ± 4.3 mm (38-54) long. The average width of the nerve was 1.9 ± 0.35 mm (1.4-2.8 mm). The average distance of the axillary nerve was 39 ± 2.9 mm (37-44 mm) from the superior facet of the greater tubercle and 53 ± 3.9 mm (48-60) from the lower edge of the acromial process. In 80% of the cases the nerve was located in the area determined for the screws going to the medial calcar region; in 20% it was over a hole for the screw directed towards the centre of humeral head. Nerve location above the first six most proximally placed screws was not recorded in any of the cases. DISCUSSION: The minimally invasive anterolateral approach is an alternative technique for osteosynthesis of proximal humerus fractures using angular stable plates. Advantages reported by a number of authors include lower incidence of avascular necrosis of the humeral head, an easier way of reduction and a better view of the rotator cuff. On the other hand, this approach is associated with a higher risk of damage to the axillary nerve. Distance of axillary nerve from acromion is very variable. It may be located in the range of 30 to 85 mm from the acromial edge. CONCLUSION: The anterolateral approach is, when respecting the anatomical position of the axillary nerve, a safe alternative to the conventional deltoideopectoral approach.
650    _2
$a axila $x inervace $7 D001365
650    _2
$a kostní destičky $7 D001860
650    12
$a vnitřní fixace fraktury $x škodlivé účinky $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D005593
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a fraktury humeru $x diagnóza $x chirurgie $7 D006810
650    _2
$a humerus $x patologie $x patofyziologie $7 D006811
650    _2
$a peroperační komplikace $x prevence a kontrola $7 D007431
650    _2
$a miniinvazivní chirurgické výkony $x škodlivé účinky $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D019060
650    _2
$a hodnocení výsledků zdravotní péče $7 D017063
650    12
$a poranění periferního nervu $x etiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D059348
655    _2
$a anglický abstrakt $7 D004740
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Taller, Stanislav, $d 1941- $7 nlk20020105998 $u Traumatologicko-ortopedické centrum se spinální jednotkou, Krajská Nemocnice Liberec
700    1_
$a Lukáš, Richard, $d 1953- $7 xx0000167 $u Traumatologicko-ortopedické centrum se spinální jednotkou, Krajská Nemocnice Liberec
700    1_
$a Dráč, Pavel $7 xx0047405 $u Traumacentrum FN Olomouc
773    0_
$w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 81, č. 1 (2014), s. 63-69
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y 4 $z 0
990    __
$a 20151001 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20151015090120 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1094190 $s 914053
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 81 $c 1 $d 63-69 $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
LZP    __
$b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20151001

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...