s_185_189_strohm_test_acta_sloupce 6/13/11 7:11 PM Stránka 185

185/ ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE

ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE ČECHOSL., 78, 2011, p. 185–189 CURRENT CONCEPTS REVIEW
SOUBORNÝ REFERÁT

Humerus Shaft Fractures – Where Are We Today?

Zlomeniny diafýzy pažní kosti – kde se nacházíme?

P.C. STROHM, K. REISING, T. HAMMER, N.P. SÜDKAMP, M. JAEGER, H. SCHMAL

Department for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Medical School, Freiburg im Breisgau,
Germany

SUMMARY
Humeral shaft fractures account for about 1-3% of all fractures. These fractures are regarded as the domain of non-sur-
gical management. This is certainly still the contemporary view but there is an obvious trend towards surgical stabilization.
Surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures has nonetheless been greatly facilitated by the development of new implants.
In particular, a new generation of nails that general permit immediate mobilization have become available for improved
management of longitudinal and multi-segmental fractures. Retrograde and antegrade nails have advantages and disa-
dvantages and selection procedure is often based on the distal or proximal location of the fracture. Plates also offer an
alternative for certain indications and have advantages at the proximal and distal shaft in particular. If there is primary lesi-
on of the radial nerve, exploration is not very advisable, but in the absence of remission exploration can be conducted after
several months with the same degree of success.
Since the published literature offers no comparative studies with a high level of evidence, our statement can only be
regarded as an up-to-date recommendation in the hope that future prospective randomized studies will address this issue.

Epidemiology subtotal amputation and/or proximal avulsion lesions of

As a percentage, humeral shaft fractures account for the plexus or vessels. The severity of these injuries can
about 1–3% of all fractures(43). Of these, about 10% are be classified with reference to the Injury Severity Sco-
open fractures. Incidence is 11.5 per 100,000 people re (ISS).
annually, or 0.011% (13). There are 2-3 frequency peaks On the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) a score of 2 is
(11, 38, 39, 43): given to closed humerus fractures, and a score of 3 to
– during adolescence open or displaced fractures, comminuted fractures, and
– in the 3rd decade of life in men as a result of mode- simple fractures with lesion of the radial nerve.
rate to severe trauma
– in the 5th - 7th decades of life, especially in women Treatment
after a simple fall. In his 1964 article entitled “Against the operative tre-
Humeral shaft fractures are generally simple fractu- atment of fresh humeral shaft fractures“ Lorenz Böhler
res of the mid-diaphysis. The incidence of primary lesi- wrote: “Of all shaft fractures of the long bones humeral
on of the radial nerve in association with humeral shaft shaft fracture is the most benign. Apart from very few
fracture is quoted at 11.8% on average(41). In more exceptions it can almost always be treated non-surgi-
elderly people, humerus fracture due to a fall is gene- cally in the simplest way by appropriate bandaging. It
rally proximal, sub- or infracapital. There is a predomi- is only necessary to know that the most important task
nance of women due to post-climactic demineralization of fracture treatment is to achieve a shortening of
of the skeleton (43). 1–10 mm, and that, for example, in transverse fractures
displacement by a whole shaft width with functionally
Aetiology and cosmetically unimportant shortening is irrelevant
In principle, the mechanism of injury may be direct providing there is no noteworthy axial or rotational
or indirect. In the case of indirect force the accident deformity“ (6). Since then non-surgical treatment of
involves falling onto the elbow or hand. Direct force is humeral shaft fractures has retained its high status. As
applied during impact of the folded arm with an edge for fractures affecting other parts of the body there has
or, more often, during direct impact of the abducted arm been a gradual change of paradigm in recent years that
with an obstacle. Depending on the mechanism, the frac- is also relevant to the management of humeral shaft frac-
ture may include a bending wedge. High energy trauma tures. On the one hand, changes have arisen from advan-
often produces multifragmentary and/or severely dislo- ces in surgical methods and implants, on the other hand,
cated fractures. Accidents in trade and industry, e.g. an patient attitude has become increasingly demanding,
arm is pulled into an industrial machine or run over, are whereby rapid stabilization of the injured extremity and
associated with substantial soft tissue injuries and even the fastest possible restoration of function is expected.
s_185_189_strohm_test_acta_sloupce 6/13/11 7:11 PM Stránka 186

186/ ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE

ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE ČECHOSL., 78, 2011 CURRENT CONCEPTS REVIEW
SOUBORNÝ REFERÁT

CLASSIFICATION

Internationally the most widely accepted classificati-

on is that of the Association for the Study of Internal
Fixation (AO/ASIF) as published by Müller and Naza-
rian (27). Every anatomical region gets a number star-
ting with the humerus as number „1“, forearm number
„2“, femur number „3“ and lower leg „4“. Then it desc-
ribes the bone segments into proximal „1“, shaft „2“ and
distal „3“. As consequence humeral shaft gets the num-
ber „12“. Then the fractures are classified in simple = a,
wedge = b and complex = c (Fig. 1).

Non-surgical treatment
In principle, prognosis is favorable for healing of
humeral shaft fractures because of the soft tissue situa-
tion and the physiological weight bearing axes. This is
the conclusion drawn by Sarmiento et al. from their
retrospective study of 920 humerus fractures treated
non-surgically, of which 67% were available to follow
up (34–36). Non-surgical treatment consisted of initial
immobilization of the fractured arm at an angle of 90°
at the elbow followed a few days later by application of
a brace. Pseudarthrosis formed in only 6% of open and Fig. 1. AO-Classification of humerus shaft fractures accor-
less than 2% of closed fractures. The functional outco- ding to Müller et al. (27)
me was good in 98%, refracture was rare and was also
treated non-surgically. The average time to healing was nal Dynamic Compression Plate (DCP) (9, 18, 29). Pre-
about 11 weeks. Good functional outcomes were achi- cise documentation of the intersection of the radial ner-
eved even in fractures displaced by one shaft width, axi- ve with the plate reduces the risk of damage at subse-
al deformities up to 20° and shortening of up to 1 cm. quent surgery. A screw in every second plate hole with
anchorage in a total of 4 cortices is sufficient to stabili-
Surgical procedure ze locking plates (17, 40). In the literature, comparison
In recent years a trend has developed towards surgi- with intramedullary techniques has produced varying
cal management of humeral shaft fractures. The obvi- outcomes. Some authors report better results with intra-
ous advantages of surgical treatment are, on the one medullary implants and think that plates should be reser-
hand, a shorter immobilization time, greater patient ved for specific indications only. Others report a higher
comfort, fewer essential radiological examinations, complication rate wtih nails and tend to prefer plates (12,
more rapid rehabilitation and shorter periods of work 25). Putti et al. also describe a higher complication rate
incapacity (20, 30). The disadvantages are general sur- with nails than with plates but found comparable clini-
gical risks, especially possible nerve injuries with con- cal outcomes for both implants (31). Bhandari et al. con-
sequent motor and sensory deficits. ducted meta-analysis and concluded that plate osteo-
The indications for which surgical management is synthesis might lessen the risk of re-operation and
generally recommended are open fractures with or wit- shoulder impingement but also established that publis-
hout concomitant vessel and nerve injuries and also de- hed reports were inconsistent (4). Although good results
teriorating neurological deficit, multi-segmental fractu- have been achieved with minimally invasive plate inser-
res, pseudarthroses and failure of non-surgical treatment tion we would not necessarily recommend it, in parti-
(20, 23). cular because of the high risk of injury to the radial ner-
Additional indications may included, for example, ve (2, 3).
positioning problems with polytraumatized patients and Plate osteosynthesis is recommended for open frac-
improvement of intensive care, bilateral humerus frac- tures, very distal shaft fractures (Fig. 2) and when explo-
tures and severe obesity (20, 25). ration of the nerve is required (12, 15, 20, 28, 32). Addi-
tional indications are situations requiring compound
Plate osteosynthesis osteosynthesis in pathological fractures and the mana-
A posterior approach is the standard approach to the gement of an increasing number of periprosthetic frac-
mid and lower shaft regions. As a rule, the standard tures. The latter present a considerable challenge to the
implant is the broad or narrow 4.5 mm plate [generally treating surgeon because of the limited options for screw
the fixed angle “Locking Compression Plate – LCP“ anchorage in the proximal shaft when bone quality is
(14)]. Biomechanical testing has revealed an advantage poor. An additional indication for plating could be very
of the 4.5 mm plate over the 3.5 mm plate but has shown proximal shaft fractures or combined shaft and humeral
no advantage of fixed angle screws over the conventio- head fractures (19, 21, 42).
s_185_189_strohm_test_acta_sloupce 6/13/11 7:11 PM Stránka 187

187/ ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE

ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE ČECHOSL., 78, 2011 CURRENT CONCEPTS REVIEW
SOUBORNÝ REFERÁT

those with retrograde nails with elbow complaints, whe-

reby 93.5% of their total sample of humerus fractures
stabilized by nailing achieved good to very good outco-
mes (33). Cheng and Lin in their study also concluded
that both antegrade and retrograde nailing procedures
yield similar outcomes (10). We do not consider it neces-
sary to conduct endoscopy-assisted intramedullary nai-
ling to preserve the radial nerve (45).
A locking nail of the newest generation is the so-cal-
led Flex nail (Synthes company). This nail can be inser-
ted in both ante- and retrograde technique. Its flexiblity
permits antegrade insertion close to the greater tuberc-
le but away from the joint surface. The risk of shaft dis-
ruption during retrograde insertion of the nail is greatly
reduced. In the case of mid shaft fractures the satellite
Fig. 2. Humeral shaft fracture combined with a fracture of the wires provide rotational stability thus eliminating the
ulnar condyle. Because of the additional condylar fracture we need for additional proximal locking as well as the risk
indicated a plate osteosynthesis of the humeral shaft and of injury to the axillary nerve (Fig. 4). Early clinical out-
screws for the condylar stabilization.
comes have been very promising (26).

Intramedullary implants
Since Küntscher presented his intramedullary nail and
von Hackethal introduced bundle nailing in 1961, nume-
rous intramedullary implants have been developed. In
the meantime, the Seidel nail and the Unreamed Hume-
ral Nail (UHN) have become established in clinical rou-
tine. The advantages and disadvantages of ante- and
retrograde approaches are well documented (1, 5, 7, 24).
The improved outcomes reported for retrograde inserti-
on arise from preservation of the rotator cuff in retro-
grade nailing technique (5, 37). A retrograde approach
is generally technically impossible for distal fractures.
In shaft and multi-segmental fractures that extend to the
very proximal region, nails over a retrograde approach
often compete against long plates or nails with a proxi-
mal joint component (Fig. 3). Rommens et al. in their
collective found that patients with antegrade nails ten- Fig. 4. 25-year-old man with a midshaft fracture. Antegrade
ded to present at follow up with shoulder complaints and nailing will be possible and may be a good alternative but for
protection of the rotator cuff we indicated a retrograde „Flex
nail“.

Managing traumatic radial nerve lesions

The prevalence of radial nerve lesions after humeral
shaft fractures lies between 9 and 18% (16, 41). Grass-
mann carried out a survey of 495 traumatology clinics
and concluded that even though a wait-and-see policy is
recommended in cases of primary radial palsy after
humeral shaft fractures based on a high spontaneous
remission rate of 90%, nerve revision is often performed
anyway in clinical routine. In these cases, it does not
seem logical to insert a locking nail in minimally inva-
sive technique because there is direct visualization of the
fracture zone and radial nerve. However, the fact rema-
ins that total discontinuity of the nerve is rare and the
spontaneous remission rate is high (16). Based on sys-
Fig. 3. Proximal humeral shaft fracture. We decided to stabi- tematic literature searches of 391 publications, Shao et
lize with an antegrade nailing with spiral blade, alternatively al. recommend management as shown in Fig. 5 (41). In
a long proximal plate could be used. X-rays of the fracture, any case, they were able to show that early exposure of
after stabilization and after 1 year and stable fracture healing. the nerve did not produce better outcomes than a more
s_185_189_strohm_test_acta_sloupce 6/13/11 7:11 PM Stránka 188

188/ ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE

ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE ČECHOSL., 78, 2011 CURRENT CONCEPTS REVIEW
SOUBORNÝ REFERÁT

by the development of new implants. In particular, a new

generation of nails that general permit immediate mobi-
lization have become available for improved manage-
ment of longitudinal and multi-segmental fractures.
Retrograde and antegrade nails have advantages and
disadvantages and selection procedure is often based on
the distal or proximal location of the fracture. Plates also
offer an alternative for certain indications and have
advantages at the proximal and distal shaft in particular.
If there is primary lesion of the radial nerve, explorati-
on is not very advisable, but in the absence of remissi-
on exploration can be conducted after several months
with the same degree of success.
Since the published literature offers no comparative
studies with a high level of evidence, our statement can
only be regarded as an up-to-date recommendation in
the hope that future prospective randomized studies will
address this issue.

References

1. AJMAL, M., O’SULLIVAN, M., McCABE, J., CURTIN, W.:

Antegrade locked intramedullary nailing in humeral shaft fractu-
res. Injury, 32(9): 692–4, 2001.
2. APIVATTHAKAKUL, T., PATIYASIKAN, S., LUEVITOON-
VECHKIT, S.: Danger zone for locking screw placement in mini-
mally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) of humeral shaft
fractures: a cadaveric study. Injury, 41(2): 169–72, 2010.
Fig. 5. Treatment algorithm for radial nerve palsy associated 3. APIVATTHAKAKUL, T., PHORNPHUTKUL, C., LAOHA-
with humeral shaft fracture. The role of ultrasound has not yet POONRUNGSEE, A., SIRIRUNGRUANGSARN, Y.: Less inva-
sive plate osteosynthesis in humeral shaft fractures. Oper. Orthop.
been properly determined. (EMG, electromyogram; NAP, ner- Traum., 21(6): 602–13, 2009.
ve axonal physiology; NCV, nerve conduction velocity) (sour- 4. BHANDARI, M., DEVEREAUX, P. J., McKEE, M. D., SCHE-
ce: Shao, Harwood et al. 2005 (41)). MITSCH, E. H.: Compression plating versus intramedullary nai-
ling of humeral shaft fractures- a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop.
77(2): 279–84, 2006.
5. BLUM, J., ROMMENS, P. M., JANZING, H., LANGENDORFF,
cautious approach and therefore recommend an initial H.S.: [Retrograde nailing of humerus shaft fractures with the
wait-and-see policy (41). Wang et al. are also in favor unreamed humerus nail. An international multicenter study].
Unfallchirurg, 101(5): 342–52, 1998.
of waiting and recommend a period of 4 months prior 6. BOEHLER, L.: [Against the Operative Treatment of Fresh Hu-
to exploration of the nerve (44). These recommendati- meral Shaft Fractures.]. Langenbecks Arch. Klin. Chir. Ver. Dtsch.
ons are partially based on the fact that functional out- Zbl. Chir., 308: 465–75, 1964.
comes after early or late nerve reconstruction do not dif- 7. BORENS, O., MOUHSINE, E., CHEVALLEY, F.: [Preliminary
fer. Secondary damage to the radial nerve after results of retrograde nailing of the humerus]. Swiss Surg., 7(2):
76–81, 2001.
aggressive revision is, of course, also possible and is a 8. BRUG, E., JOIST, A., MEFFERT, R.: [Postoperative radial para-
risk can be avoided in the 90% of nerves showing spon- lysis. Fate or negligence, conservative wait or revision?]. Unfall-
taneous remission of function (22). In this context, the chirurg, 105(1): 82–5,2002.
question arises of which fracture fixation method is asso- 9. CATANZARITE, J., ALAN, R., BAIG, R., FORNO, P., BENSON,
L.: Biomechanical testing of unstable humeral shaft fracture pla-
ciated with the greatest probability of radial nerve dama- ting. J. Surg., Orthop. Adv. 18(4): 175–81, 2009.
ge. Studies on this topic with the relevant level of evi- 10. CHENG, H. R., LIN, J.: Prospective randomized comparative stu-
dence do not exist and data from isolated retrospective dy of antegrade and retrograde locked nailing for middle humeral
surveys vary from 0 to 10% postoperative radial palsy shaft fracture. J. Trauma, 65(1): 94–102, 2008.
regardless of the stabilization technique (8). 11. COLE, P. A., WIJDICKS, C. A.: The operative treatment of dia-
physeal humeral shaft fractures. Hand Clin. 23(4): 437–48, 2007.
12. CONNOLLY, S., McKEE, M. D., ZDERO, R., WADDELL, J. P.,
CONCLUSION SCHEMITSCH, E. H.: Immediate plate osteosynthesis of open
fractures of the humeral shaft. J. Trauma, 69(3): 685–90, 2010.
Humeral shaft fracture is regarded as the domain of 13. COURT-BROWN, C. M., RIMMER, S., PRAKASH, U.,
McQUEEN, M. M.: The epidemiology of open long bone fractu-
non-surgical management. This is certainly still the con- res. Injury, 29(7): 529–34, 1998.
temporary view but there is an obvious trend towards 14. FRIGG, R.: Locking Compression Plate (LCP). An osteosynthe-
surgical stabilization. Surgical treatment of humeral sis plate based on the Dynamic Compression Plate and the Point
shaft fractures has nonetheless been greatly facilitated Contact Fixator (PC-Fix). Injury, 32, Suppl 2: 63–6, 2001.
s_185_189_strohm_test_acta_sloupce 6/13/11 7:11 PM Stránka 189

189/ ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE

ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE ČECHOSL., 78, 2011 CURRENT CONCEPTS REVIEW
SOUBORNÝ REFERÁT

15. GEORGIADES, C., MATEJKA, J., PAVELKA, T., HOUCEK, P.: 32. REISING, K., HAUSCHILD, O., STROHM, P. C., SUEDKAMP,
[Treatment of distal humeral fractures by open reduction and inter- N. P.: Stabilisation of articular fractures of the distal humerus: ear-
nal LCP-DHP fixation]. Acta Chir. orthop. Traum. čech., 77(6): ly experience with a novel perpendicular plate system. Injury,
479–83, 2010. 40(6): 611–7, 2009.
16. GRASSMANN, J. P., JUNGBLUTH, P., BULLERMANN, L., 33. ROMMENS, P. M., KUECHLE, R., BORD, T., LEWENS, T.,
HAKIMI, M., GEHRMANN, S. V., THELEN, S. et al.: Radial ENGELMANN, R., BLUM, J.: Humeral nailing revisited. Injury,
Nerve Palsy Associated with Humeral Shaft Fractures – Early 39(12): 1319–28, 2008.
Exploration or Expectant Procedure? An Analysis Concerning 34. SARMIENTO, A., LATTA, L. L.: [Humeral diaphyseal fractures:
Current Strategies of Treatment. Zbl. Orthop. Unfall., 2010. functional bracing]. Unfallchirurg, 110(10): 824–32, 2007.
17. HAK, D. J., ALTHAUSEN, P., HAZELWOOD, S. J.: Locked pla- 35. SARMIENTO, A., WADDELL, J. P., LATTA, L. L.: Diaphyseal
te fixation of osteoporotic humeral shaft fractures: are two locking humeral fractures: treatment options. Instr. Course Lect., 51:
screws per segment enough? J. Orthop. Trauma, 24(4): 207–11, 257–69, 2002.
2010. 36. SARMIENTO, A., ZAGORSKI, J. B., ZYCH, G. A., LATTA, L.
18. JUPITER, J.B., WYSS, H.: Stable fixation of osteoporotic fractu- L., CAPPS, C. A.: Functional bracing for the treatment of fractu-
res and nonunions in the upper limb – life before the „locking pla- res of the humeral diaphysis. J. Bone Jt Surg., Amer. 82(4): 478–86,
te“. Acta Chir. orthop. Traum. čech., 77(5): 361–4, 2010. 2000.
19. KONRAD, G. G., MEHLHORN, A., KUHLE, J., STROHM, P. 37. SCHEERLINCK, T., HANDELBERG, F.: Functional outcome
C., SUDKAMP, N. P.: Proximal humerus fractures – current tre- after intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures: compari-
atment options. Acta Chir. orthop. Traum. čech., 75(6): 413–21, son between retrograde Marchetti-Vicenzi and unreamed AO
2008. antegrade nailing. J. Trauma, 52(1): 60–71, 2002.
20. KOSTLER, W., STROHM, P. C., SUDKAMP, N. P.: [New tech- 38. SCHITTKO, A.: [Humerus shaft fractures]. Unfallchirurg, 106(2):
niques for bone synthesis on the humerus]. Chirurg, 73(10): 969– 145–58; quiz 59–60, 2003.
77, 2002. 39. SCHITTKO, A.: [Humeral shaft fractures]. Chirurg, 75(8):
21. KRIVOHLAVEK, M., LUKAS, R., TALLER, S., SRAM, J.: [Use 833–46; quiz 47, 2004.
of angle-stable implants for proximal humeral fractures: pro- 40. SCHMAL, H., STROHM, P. C., JAEGER, M., SUDKAMP, N. P.:
spective study]. Acta Chir. orthop. Traum. čech., 75(3): 212–20, Flexible fixation and fracture healing: do locked plating ‘internal
2008. fixators’ resemble external fixators? J. Orthop. Trauma, 25 Suppl 1:
22. LEE, Y. H., CHUNG, M. S., GONG, H. S., CHUNG, J. Y., PARK, S15–20, 2011.
J. H., BAEK, G. H.: Sural nerve autografts for high radial nerve 41. SHAO, Y. C., HARWOOD, P., GROTZ, M. R., LIMB, D., GIAN-
injury with nine centimeter or greater defects. J. Hand Surg., Amer. NOUDIS, P. V.: Radial nerve palsy associated with fractures of
33(1): 83–6, 2008. the shaft of the humerus: a systematic review. J. Bone Jt Surg.,
23. LIN, J., HOU, S. M., HANG, Y. S.: Treatment of humeral shaft 87-B: 1647–52, 2005.
delayed unions and nonunions with humeral locked nails. J. Trau- 42. STROHM, P. C., HELWIG, P., KONRAD, G., SUDKAMP, N. P.:
ma, 48(4): 695–703, 2000. Locking plates in proximal humerus fractures. Acta Chir.
24. LIN, J., INOUE, N., VALDEVIT, A., HANG, Y. S., HOU, S. M., orthop.Traum. čech., 74(6): 410–5, 2007.
CHAO, E. Y.: Biomechanical comparison of antegrade and retro- 43. STUBY, F. M., HONTZSCH, D.: [Humerus shaft fractures].
grade nailing of humeral shaft fracture. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. Z. Orthop. Unfall, 147(3): 375–86; quiz 87–90, 2009.
(351): 203–13, 1998. 44. WANG, J. P., SHEN, W. J., CHEN, W. M., HUANG, C. K., SHEN,
25. MARTY, B., KACH, K., FRIEDL, H. P., TRENTZ, O.: [Intrame- Y. S., CHEN, T. H.: Iatrogenic radial nerve palsy after operative
dullary nailing of the humerus shaft fracture]. Unfallchirurg, 97(8): management of humeral shaft fractures. J. Trauma, 66(3): 800–3,
424–9, 1994. 2009.
26. MULLER, C. A., HENLE, P., KONRAD, G., SZARZYNSKI, M., 45. ZOBRIST, R., MESSMER, P., LEVIN, L. S., REGAZZONI, P.:
STROHM, P. C., SUDKAMP, N. P.: [The AO/ASIF Flexnail : A [Endoscopically controlled stabilization of humerus shaft fractu-
flexible intramedullary nail for the treatment of humeral shaft res. The endoscope as an aid in minimally invasive osteosynthe-
fractures.]. Unfallchirurg, 110(3): 219–25, 2007. sis]. Unfallchirurg, 105(3): 246–52; discussion 53, 2002.
27. MULLER, M. E., NAZARIAN, S., KOCH, P., SCHATZKER, J.:
The comprehensive classification of fractures of the long bones.
New York: Berlin Heidelberg, Springer, 1990.
28. NIEMEYER, P., HAUSCHILD, O., STROHM, P.C., MULLER,
C. A., SUDKAMP, N. P., KOSTLER, W.: Fracture Treatment in
the Elderly. Acta Chir. orthop. Traum. čech., 71(6): 329–38, 2004.
29. O’TOOLE, R. V., ANDERSEN, R. C., VESNOVSKY, O., ALE- Corresponding author:
XANDER, M., TOPOLESKI, L. D., NASCONE, J. W. et al.: Are PD Dr. Peter C. Strohm, M.D.
locking screws advantageous with plate fixation of humeral shaft Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg,
fractures? A biomechanical analysis of synthetic and cadaveric
Medical School
bone. J. Orthop. Trauma, 22(10): 709–15, 2008.
30. PERREN, S. M.: Fracture healing. The evolution of our under- Department for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
standing. Acta Chir. orthop. Traum. čech., 75(4): 241–6, 2008. Hugstetterstr. 55
31. PUTTI, A. B., UPPIN, R. B., PUTTI, B. B.: Locked intramedul- D-79106 Freiburg im Breisgau
lary nailing versus dynamic compression plating for humeral shaft Germany
fractures. J. Orthop. Surg., (Hong Kong), 17(2): 139–41, 2009. E-mail: peter.strohm@uniklinik-freiburg.de