Skip to main content
Download PDF

Risk factors of poor mid-term shoulder functional outcomes of osteosynthesis using antegrade intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 456 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Osteosynthesis using antegrade intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures yields satisfactory bone union rates; however, it may adversely affect postoperative shoulder function. To date, factors affecting mid- or long-term shoulder functional outcomes following intramedullary nail fixation have not been clarified. In this study, we aimed to identify the risk factors for poor mid-term functional outcomes over 5 years postoperatively following antegrade intramedullary nail osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 33 patients who underwent surgery using an antegrade intramedullary nail for acute traumatic humeral shaft fractures and were followed up for at least 5 years postoperatively. We divided the patients into clinical failure and no clinical failure groups using an age- and sex-adjusted Constant score of 55 at the final follow-up as the cutoff value. We compared preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors between the two groups.

Results

Five of the 33 patients had poor shoulder functional outcomes (adjusted Constant score < 55) at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years postoperatively. Proximal protrusion of the nail at the time of bone union (P = 0.004) and older age (P = 0.009) were significantly associated with clinical failure in the univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis showed that proximal protrusion of the nail (P = 0.031) was a risk factor for poor outcomes.

Conclusions

The findings of this study provide new information on predictive factors affecting mid-term outcomes following osteosynthesis using antegrade nails. Our results demonstrated that proximal protrusion of the nail was significantly associated with poor mid-term functional shoulder outcomes. Therefore, particularly in older adults, it is essential to place the proximal end of the intramedullary nail below the level of the articular cartilage.

Peer Review reports

Background

Osteosynthesis using an intramedullary nail for humeral shaft fractures provides solid stability and good load sharing, while minimizing soft tissue damage and preserving the periosteal blood supply at the fracture site [1, 2], resulting in satisfactory postoperative bone union rates [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Contrarily, antegrade intramedullary nailing has been reported to cause more shoulder complications, such as shoulder pain and decreased range of shoulder motion or muscle strength, compared with plate fixation [5, 7, 9, 11, 12].

Previous studies have suggested that the risk factors for poor shoulder functional outcomes following osteosynthesis using an antegrade intramedullary nail include proximal protrusion of the nail [4, 13,14,15], nonunion [14, 16], older age [17], radial nerve injury [4], brachial plexus nerve injury [4], and ipsilateral superior-limb fracture [3]. In addition, the occurrence of nonunion or delayed union is associated with older age [18], time from injury to surgery [19], distraction of fracture [3, 14], and fracture type (transverse fracture) [3]. However, these previous reports on the postoperative outcomes of humeral shaft fractures were based on short-term results in patients with a mean follow-up time of 1–3 years after surgery [3, 4, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19]; therefore, the factors affecting mid- or long-term shoulder functional outcomes remain largely unknown.

Therefore, in this study, we aimed to determine the factors that influence the mid-term shoulder functional outcomes of antegrade intramedullary nail osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures by investigating the postoperative results in patients with a minimum follow-up duration of 5 years.

Methods

Study design and patients

The independent ethics committee of Ashikaga Red Cross Hospital approved the study protocol (No. 2022-33). This retrospective study included adult patients (with closed epiphysis) who underwent osteosynthesis using an antegrade intramedullary nail for acute humeral shaft fractures within 3 weeks of injury at a single general hospital between 2011 and 2018. Patients who could not be evaluated for shoulder functional outcomes at > 5 years postoperatively and those with pathological fracture, open fracture, a history of shoulder surgery, and paralysis of the affected upper extremity due to cerebral infarction or other causes were excluded.

Surgical procedure

Six orthopedic surgeons performed the surgeries. In all cases, the surgeries were performed in the beach-chair position under general anesthesia. Osteosynthesis was performed using a deltoid split approach. We made a 1–2 cm incision with a scalpel in the direction of the muscle fibers with the supraspinatus tendon, preserving its insertion at the greater tuberosity. We inserted a guide pin from the apex of the humeral head and opened the medullary canal using an awl. An intramedullary nail was inserted under fluoroscopic guidance. The implants used in this study were the MultiLoc humeral nail (DePuy Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland), Trigen humeral nails (Smith & Nephew, Watfold, UK), and Polarus2 humeral nail (Acumed, Hillsboro, OR, USA). After manual reduction and nail insertion, distal and proximal locking screws were inserted. The number of screws depended on the surgeon’s judgment, based on the stability of the fixation of the fracture site. The end cap was then screwed. We repaired the supraspinatus tendon with 2–4 single stitches using no. 0 Surgilon™ (Medtronics, Dublin, Ireland).

After surgery, the patients wore a sling for 1–2 weeks, during which passive range-of-motion training was started, while active motion training was started at 4–6 weeks postoperatively.

Outcome measures

We evaluated postoperative shoulder functional outcomes using the Constant score [20], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score [21], and visual analog scale (VAS). One examiner with 10 years of experience in shoulder surgery, who was not involved in the surgery, evaluated the outcomes. Constant scores were adjusted for age and sex [22]. Based on previous reports on surgical outcomes for proximal humeral fractures [23], an adjusted constant score of < 55 was considered a poor outcome and defined as “clinical failure” in this study.

The explanatory variables included preoperative factors (age, sex, affected side of the arm, smoking history, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), time from injury to surgery, time from surgery to final follow-up, preoperative radial nerve injury, position in the shaft, fracture type, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification, and local osteoporosis), perioperative factors (operative time, blood loss, and nail design), and postoperative factors (fracture gap, delayed union, and proximal protrusion of the nail). A single examiner, blinded to postoperative shoulder functional outcomes results, evaluated these variables based on past clinical notes and plain radiographic images. We measured the average cortical bone thickness at two sites of the humerus, based on a previous report, and defined an average proximal humerus cortical thickness of 6 mm as the potential threshold value for predicting local osteoporosis [24]. Nail design was classified into straight nails inserted through the apex of the humeral head (MultiLoc and Trigen) and a lateral curved nail inserted from 4º lateral to the apex of the humeral head (Polarus2). The fracture gap immediately after surgery was measured on plain radiographs obtained immediately after surgery as the shortest distance between the proximal and distal bone fragments, according to a previous report [25]. Delayed union was defined as bone union occurring after 26 weeks [26]. Proximal nail protrusion was defined as a protrusion of the end of the nail more than 1 mm above the humeral head in either the anteroposterior view or scapular-Y view of the shoulder plain radiograph taken at the bone union.

Patients were divided into a clinical failure group and no clinical failure group, using an adjusted Constant score of 55 at the final follow-up as the cutoff value. We compared the two groups’ average and frequency of the explanatory variables in the univariate analysis. Significant baseline variables in the univariate analyses and reported risk factors for short-term poor outcomes (proximal protrusion of the nail [4, 13,14,15], delayed union [14, 16], older age [17], and preoperative radial nerve injury [4]) were included in the multivariate models.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software (version 25.0*, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The categorical data are presented as number and percentage. We used the bootstrap yuen-welch-t-test to compare the averages of continuous values (age, BMI, time from injury to surgery, time from surgery to final follow-up, operative time, blood loss, fracture gap, adjusted Constant score, ASES shoulder score, VAS, and range of motion). We used Fisher’s exact test (sex, affected side of injury, smoking history, diabetes, preoperative radial nerve injury, position in the shaft, nail design, delayed union, and proximal protrusion of the nail) or chi-square test (fracture type and AO classification) to compare the proportions. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis to identify the independent predictors of mid-term poor outcomes. Regression model fit was estimated using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

We identified 54 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 16 patients were excluded due to loss to follow-up (six patients died, five patients relocated, and five patients self-interrupted), two patients due to pathological fracture, one patient due to open fracture, and two patients due to paralysis of the affected upper extremity caused by cerebral infarction. Thus, a total of 33 patients were included in this study. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The mean age at the time of surgery was 59.9 ± 19.4 (range 17–90) years. The mean time from injury to surgery was 3.8 ± 2.9 (range 1–15) days. The fracture type was proximal third in 22 patients and the middle third in 11. None had a distal third fracture. None of the patients underwent nail removal during the 5-year postoperative period.

Table 1 Patient Characteristics
Full size table

The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 2.1 (range 5.0–11.4) years. The mean adjusted Constant score, ASES shoulder score, and VAS at the last follow-up were 86.2 ± 15.7 (range 52–100), 84.3 ± 17.1 (range 37–100), and 0.86 ± 1.34 (range 0–6.0) cm, respectively. The mean range of shoulder motion for anterior elevation was 138 ± 24 (range 80–160) ° and external rotation was 46 ± 12 (range 20–70) °. All patients with traumatic radial nerve injury showed improvement over time, with only mild sensory deficits remaining at the final follow-up (Fig. 1A). Iatrogenic nerve injury was not observed postoperatively. Five patients experienced delayed bone union at 26 weeks postoperatively; however, all patients eventually achieved union within two years after surgery (Fig. 1B). Seven patients presented with proximal protrusion of the nail at the bone union in the scapular Y view of the shoulder radiograph (Fig. 1C).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Postoperative radiographs of the representative cases. (A) Immediate postoperative radiograph of the patient with preoperative radial nerve palsy. Symptoms of the radial nerve injury improved within 1 year postoperatively, and the Constant score was 100 at 9 years postoperatively. (B) Radiograph of the patient presenting with delayed bone union at 26 weeks postoperatively. Subsequently, bone union was observed at 1.5 years postoperatively, and the adjusted Constant score was 95 at 6 years postoperatively. (C) Scapula-Y view of the shoulder radiograph of the patient presenting with a nail protrusion of 2 mm above the humeral head at the time of bone union (yellow lines). Six years postoperatively, the patient had residual severe shoulder pain and an adjusted Constant score of 54

Full size image

In this study, five patients were classified into the clinical failure group (adjusted Constant score < 55) and 28 patients into the no clinical failure group (adjusted Constant score ≥ 55). The mean ASES shoulder score and range of anterior elevation and external rotation were significantly lower in the clinical failure group than in the no clinical failure group (P = 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.014, respectively) (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of Clinical Outcome Score and Range of Shoulder Motion by Occurrence of Clinical Failure
Full size table

For the preoperative factors, the mean age at surgery was significantly higher in the clinical failure group than in the no clinical failure group (76.8 ± 11.6 years vs. 56.9 ± 19.0 years, respectively, P = 0.009; Table 3). For the perioperative and postoperative factors, the ratio of proximal protrusion of the nail was significantly higher in the clinical failure group than in the no clinical failure group (80% vs. 11%, respectively, P = 0.004; Table 4).

Table 3 Comparison of Preoperative Factors by Occurrence of Clinical Failure
Full size table
Table 4 Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Factors by Occurrence of Clinical Failure
Full size table

Multivariate analysis showed that proximal protrusion of the nail (odds ratio [OR], 121.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–9657; P = 0.031) was a risk factor for poor mid-term shoulder functional outcomes (Table 5). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed no significant difference from the good model fit (P = 0.661).

Table 5 Multivariate Predictors of Poor Mid-term Shoulder Functional Outcomes
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the postoperative shoulder functional outcomes of patients who underwent osteosynthesis using an intramedullary nail for humeral shaft fractures with a minimum follow-up duration of five years. Subsequently, we identified proximal protrusion of the intramedullary nail and older age as risk factors for poor mid-term outcomes in the univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis showed that proximal protrusion of the nail was a risk factor for poor outcomes.

We found that patients with proximal protrusion of the nail on plain radiography at the time of bone union had significantly lower shoulder functional scores. Several previous studies have suggested an association between proximal nail protrusion and clinical failure [4, 13,14,15]; however, this is the first study to show a significant association. Proximal nail protrusion is thought to cause impingement of the nail on the rotator cuff or subacromial space, leading to persistent shoulder pain and loss of range of motion [4, 13,14,15, 27]. Although placing the proximal end of the nail to anchor in the zone of dense subchondral bone is of critical importance in countering varus displacing force [28, 29], this study suggests that the nail should be inserted into the humeral head to avoid protrusion above the level of the articular cartilage. In cases where proximal nail protrusion remains at the time of bone union, nail removal has been reported to improve symptoms [7, 18] and can be a treatment option in such cases.

This study also showed that older age was significantly associated with poor mid-term shoulder functional outcomes in the univariate analysis. A previous study reported that all patients with unsatisfactory shoulder functional outcomes within two years after intramedullary nail fixation were older than 78 years [17], which concurs with the results of the present study. In addition, another study, including patients who underwent conservative therapy, plate fixation, or intramedullary nailing demonstrated an association between older age and poor shoulder function at 26 weeks and 52 weeks following injury [30]. However, multivariate analysis showed no significant association between older age and poor outcomes, possibly because of the confounding effect between nail protrusion and older age due to the effect of rotator cuff degeneration on the healing of the rotator cuff damaged during nail insertion and the osteoporotic loss of cortical bone in older age [18].

Unlike in a previous report [4], preoperative radial nerve injury was not significantly associated with clinical failure in this study. This disparity was attributed to the differences in the postoperative follow-up time. In this study, all patients with traumatic radial nerve injury improved over time, with only mild sensory deficits remaining at more than five years postoperatively, suggesting that preoperative radial nerve injury may affect the short-term shoulder functional outcomes and not the mid-term outcomes.

In addition, our results are different from those of previous reports showing an association between nonunion at six months after surgery and poor postoperative functional outcomes [13, 16]. The differences in the postoperative follow-up time can partly explain this discrepancy. All patients in this study who did not achieve union six months after surgery eventually achieved union within two years after surgery. This raises the possibility that the final bone union had little effect on the mid-term outcomes.

The strength of this study is that it evaluated mid-term shoulder functional outcomes following osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fractures. Previous studies on the postoperative outcomes of humeral shaft fractures have evaluated shoulder function at 1–3 years postoperatively [1, 2, 12]; till date, no study has assessed shoulder functional outcomes at more than five years postoperatively.

However, this study had some limitations. First, the cohort of patients available for analysis was small; therefore, our results may have included the effect of β-error. However, the sample size of most reported studies has been 20–40 patients [1, 2, 12], and our sample size is comparable to these studies. Second, due to the study’s observational nature, biases from unobserved differences may have affected the outcomes. For instance, although six surgeons performed the operations in this study, their skill levels were not taken into consideration. Moreover, the fact that the choice of implants depends on the surgeon’s preference could be a limitation of this study. Third, 16 patients were excluded owing to loss to follow-up, which may decrease the generalizability of the study results.

Conclusion

This study provides new information on predictive factors affecting mid-term outcomes following osteosynthesis using an antegrade nail. Our findings demonstrated that proximal protrusion of the nail was significantly associated with poor mid-term shoulder functional outcomes. Therefore, particularly in older adults, it is essential to place the proximal end of the intramedullary nail below the level of the articular cartilage.

Data availability

Data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ASES:

American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons

VAS:

Visual analog scale

BMI:

Body mass index

AO:

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Gallusser N, Barimani B, Vauclair F. Humeral shaft fractures. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6:24–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Updegrove GF, Mourad W, Abboud JA. Humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27:e87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benegas E, Ferreira Neto AA, Gracitelli ME, Malavolta EA, Assunção JH, Prada S, et al. Shoulder function after surgical treatment of displaced fractures of the humeral shaft: a randomized trial comparing antegrade intramedullary nailing with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:767–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Changulani M, Jain UK, Keswani T. Comparison of the use of the humerus intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate for the management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. A randomised controlled study. Int Orthop. 2007;31:391–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman JR, Henley MB, Agel J, Benca PJ. Randomized prospective study of humeral shaft fracture fixation: intramedullary nails versus plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:162–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dimakopoulos P, Papadopoulos AX, Papas M, Panagopoulos A, Lambiris E. Modified extra rotator-cuff entry point in antegrade humeral nailing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125:27–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 Br. 2000;82:336–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park JY, Pandher DS, Chun JY, Md MD. Antegrade humeral nailing through the rotator cuff interval: a new entry portal. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:419–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Putti AB, Uppin RB, Putti BB. Locked intramedullary nailing versus dynamic compression plating for humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009;17:139–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rommens PM, Kuechle R, Bord T, Lewens T, Engelmann R, Blum J. Humeral nailing revisited. Injury. 2008;39:1319–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Singisetti K, Ambedkar M. Nailing versus plating in humerus shaft fractures: a prospective comparative study. Int Orthop. 2010;34:571–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ouyang H, Xiong J, Xiang P, Cui Z, Chen L, Yu B. Plate versus intramedullary nail fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: an updated meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:387–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ajmal M, O’Sullivan M, McCabe J, Curtin W. Antegrade locked intramedullary nailing in humeral shaft fractures. Injury. 2001;32:692–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ingman AM, Waters DA. Locked intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. Implant design, surgical technique, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:23–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Robinson CM, Bell KM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Locked nailing of humeral shaft fractures. Experience in Edinburgh over a two-year period. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:558–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Flinkkilä T, Hyvönen P, Lakovaara M, Linden T, Ristiniemi J, Hämäläinen M. Intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. A retrospective study of 126 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:133–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ikpeme JO. Intramedullary interlocking nailing for humeral fractures: experiences with the Russell-Taylor humeral nail. Injury. 1994;25:447–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cox MA, Dolan M, Synnott K, McElwain JP. Closed interlocking nailing of humeral shaft fractures with the Russell-Taylor nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:349–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Furuhata R, Kamata Y, Kono A, Kiyota Y, Morioka H. Influence of timing on surgical outcomes for acute humeral shaft fractures. Adv Orthop. 2021;2021:8977630.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1994;3:347–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tavakkolizadeh A, Ghassemi A, Colegate-Stone T, Latif A, Sinha J. Gender-specific constant score correction for age. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:529–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Clement ND, Duckworth AD, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. The outcome of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly: predictors of mortality and function. Bone Joint J. 2014;96–B:970–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mather J, MacDermid JC, Faber KJ, Athwal GS. Proximal humerus cortical bone thickness correlates with bone mineral density and can clinically rule out osteoporosis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:732–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Neuhaus V, Menendez M, Kurylo JC, Dyer GS, Jawa A, Ring D. Risk factors for fracture mobility six weeks after initiation of brace treatment of mid-diaphyseal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:403–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harkin FE, Large RJ. Humeral shaft fractures: union outcomes in a large cohort. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26:1881–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen CH, Hansen D, Jørgensen U. Humeral shaft fractures treated by interlocking nailing: a preliminary report on 16 patients. Injury. 1992;23:234–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Euler SA, Petri M, Venderley MB, Dornan GJ, Schmoelz W, Turnbull TL, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of straight antegrade nailing in proximal humeral fractures: the rationale of the proximal anchoring point. Int Orthop. 2017;41:1715–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hepp P, Josten C. Biology and biomechanics in osteosynthesis of proximal humerus fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2007;33:337–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Broadbent MR, Will E, McQueen MM. Prediction of outcome after humeral diaphyseal fracture. Injury. 2010;41:572–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Masako Endo, Tomoyo Matsumura and Shiho Tanaka (Ashikaga Red Cross Hospital) for their contributions to the data collection in this study.

Funding

The authors certify that they or their institutions did not receive any support (e.g., grants, funding, payment, or other benefits) or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits in connection with the research or preparation of this manuscript. The authors also received no funding for the design of the study and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ashikaga Red Cross Hospital, 284-1 Yobe-cho, Ashikaga, 326-0843, Tochigi, Japan

    Ryogo Furuhata, Atsushi Tanji & Soichiro Nakamura

Authors
  1. Ryogo Furuhata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atsushi Tanji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soichiro Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-original draft. AT: Project administration, Writing-review & editing. SN: Investigation, Writing-original draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryogo Furuhata.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ashikaga Red Cross Hospital Independent Ethics Committee (No. 2022-33). This retrospective study was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

We obtained the written informed consent from all individual participants to publish the images and study results in a manner that does not reveal personally identifiable information such as patient names, dates of birth, address, or medical record ID.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Furuhata, R., Tanji, A. & Nakamura, S. Risk factors of poor mid-term shoulder functional outcomes of osteosynthesis using antegrade intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 456 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07572-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07572-1

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us