
Learn the Fixation of distal third humeral shaft fracture using Synthes LCP extra-articular distal humeral plate surgical technique with step by step instructions on OrthOracle. Our e-learning platform contains high resolution images and a certified CME of the Fixation of distal third humeral shaft fracture using Synthes LCP extra-articular distal humeral plate surgical procedure.
Using a plate remains the commonest method of internal fixation used for those humeral shaft fractures which require surgical treatment. The location of the fracture determines both the approach and also the type of plate to be used.
For a distal third humeral shaft fracture my preference for using the Synthes extra-articular distal humeral plate stems from the need for adequate fixation. Due to the anatomical shape of the distal humerus this can be difficult to achieve with plates that are not designed for the area. The fracture characteristics and level of the fracture determines the type of plate required but irrespective the principle of having six to eight cortices of hold either side of the fracture is adhered to. For fractures in this region, a standard LCP plate would not normally allow adequate fixation of the distal fragment as it encroaches on the olecranon fossa and can therefore inhibit elbow extension. The design of the Synthes LCP extra-articular distal humeral plate plate however allows fixation distally along the dorsal aspect of the lateral column, leaving the olecranon fossa clear. The plate is also sufficiently robust to allow fixation using a single implant, thus reducing both operating time and extent of exposure.

INDICATIONS:
Fractures involving the humeral shaft are common. They account for 1-3% of adult fractures. The majority of these injuries can be managed conservatively. Indications for surgery can be divided into absolute and relative indications in the acute setting.
Absolute indications include:
Open fractures
Fractures with associated vascular injury requiring surgical repair
Floating elbow fractures involving ipselateral forearm fractures
Fractures complicated by a compartment syndrome
Relative indications include:
Polytrauma patients
Bilateral humeral fractures
Specific fracture characteristics including distraction at fracture site and short oblique or transverse fractures
Patients who elect for surgical fixation to allow earlier mobilisation and therefore potential earlier return to function.
Patients may also require surgery if the fracture fails conservative management, for example due to progressing deformity, pain that is not controllable or a delayed or non-union.
SYMPTOMS & EXAMINATION:
Patients usually present after sustaining a direct blow to the upper arm. These occur in a bimodal distribution either in young patients with high energy trauma and in elderly patients with osteopaenic bone suffering low energy trauma. Spiral fractures of the distal humerus can also be caused by twisting injuries and even arm-wrestling as a cause has been documented in the literature.
Patients present with arm pain, crepitus and deformity. The arm is shortened and usually lies in varus and internally rotated as it rests against the body.
It is important to perform a neurovascular assessment, with particular reference to the radial nerve and brachial artery. The incidence of radial nerve injuries is approximately 16%, although most spontaneously recover.
In high energy injuries, although uncommon, it is important to consider the intercurrent existence of an upper limb compartment syndrome.
IMAGING:
Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the humerus should be obtained and should include the joints above and below.
If there is concern regarding proximal extension or distal extension into the elbow joint, a CT scan may be warranted for surgical planning.
CLASSIFICATION:
The OTA/AO Classification is the most useful and commonly used.
Given these fractures are located in the humeral shaft, these are described as “12” with sub-types A (simple), B (wedge) or C (multi-fragmentary).
Type A fractures have been subdivided into spiral fractures (A1), oblique (≥30º) fractures (A2), and transverse (< 30º) fractures (A3).
Type B fractures are divided into intact wedge fractures (B2) and fragmentary wedge fractures (B3).
For types A and B, the location of the fracture is also specified as a-proximal third, b-middle third or c-distal third.
Type C (multifragmentary) fractures are divided into intact segmental fractures (C2) and fragmentary segmental fractures (C3). Type C3 fractures are also subdivided on the basis of location (i-proximal diaphyseal–metaphyseal, j-pure diaphyseal, k-distal diaphyseal–metaphyseal).
ALTERNATIVE OPERATIVE TREATMENT:
Surgical management of humeral shaft fractures include plate fixation, intramedullary nailing and external fixator. Although there are numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses in the literature, there is little evidence and no consensus as to the most suitable treatment, and this is largely dependent on the experience of the surgeon.
Open Reduction and Internal Fixation.
Plate fixation is the commonest method of internal fixation used for humeral shaft fractures when clinically indicated. The location of the fracture determines the approach and the type of plate used. 6-8 cortices of hold either side of the fracture are aimed for.
Broadly speaking, for proximal third humeral shaft fractures, these are commonly fixed with a Synthes Philos plate or other proximal humeral locking plate, utilising a deltopectoral/anterolateral approach. For midshaft fractures, these can be fixed using a large fragment locking compression plate (LCP) utilising an anterolateral or posterior approach. For distal third shaft fractures, the author has a preference for the Synthes LCP extra-articular distal humerus plate, utilising a posterior approach.
Advantages include allowing anatomical reduction of the fracture with interfragmentary compression and the ability to explore the radial nerve if there is a concern regarding its integrity.
Disadvantages include higher blood loss when compared to intramedullary nailing or external fixator due to the greater surgical exposure along with the risk of iatrogenic radial nerve injury. Aesthetically, this also results in a longer scar. For the extra-articular humeral plate, hardware prominence may occur from the distal extension of the plate as it lies on the subcutaneous bony surface of the lateral column and may warrant removal if it remains symptomatic.
Minimally invasive and percutaneous methods are also described.
Intramedullary nail
The results of humeral intramedullary nailing systems are extensively documented in the literature. Published results are comparable to alternative fixation methods. The theoretical advantages include load sharing properties of a nail and smaller scars. Intramedullary nailing may be advantageous particularly if there is clinical concern with regard to the soft tissues, in severely osteoporotic bone and in pathological fractures where there is a concern regarding potential bleeding or if there is a soft tissue component. They also allow splintage of the whole humerus if there are skip lesions. Any decision for surgical management of pathological fractures needs to be taken in conjunction with the local bone tumour unit of course.
Lin et al. suggested there was decreased blood loss with intramedullary nailing compared with plating. However, there is concern with potential damage to the rotator cuff and there is some evidence that nailing using a proximal entry nail is associated with an increased requirement for secondary shoulder surgery.
Harkin et al (2017) showed that there was no difference in union rates or neurologic injury rates when compared to plate fixation.
External Fixator
External fixators are largely used in open fracture management. These are used in initial debridement and temporary stabilisation. It is uncommon for a fracture to be definitively managed by external fixator and the technique carries a high complication rate.
NON-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
The majority of humeral fractures can be treated non-operatively with union rates over 90% often reported. Closed humeral shaft fractures are normally managed acutely with a hanging cast or coaptation splint for the first 1-3 weeks before conversion to a functional brace. A coaptation splint extends up to the axilla and over the shoulder and is applied until the swelling improves and the fracture starts to heal. It is applied to counteract the varus and extension forces to the distal fragment. Thereafter, a functional brace is applied to allow mobilisation of the shoulder and elbow.
Criteria for acceptable alignment include <20 degrees anterior angulation, <30 degrees varus angulation and <3cm shortening. Malunion within these parameters rarely results in any functional or cosmetic compromise.
It is worth bearing in mind that there is evidence for increased rates of non-union in fractures manage conservatively. Harkin et al. (2017) reported that non-union rates were 33% if conservatively managed compared to 4% for those surgically fixed. The study also noted that patients with a psychiatric history, including dementia, had a higher non-union rate with conservative management.
CONTRAINDICATIONS
Patients of low functional demand or medically unfit would be relative contra-indications. As part of informed consent, a discussion of outcomes of conservative and operative methods is essential.

The procedure is performed under general anaesthetic and may be supplemented with a nerve block performed by the anaesthetist. It is usually necessary to supplement this with local anaesthetic and adrenaline (1:200000) infiltrated to the operative field to optimise pain relief and to minimise bleeding.
The patient is placed in a lateral decubitus position with the affected arm uppermost. The pelvis is checked to ensure that it is perpendicular to the operating table and the spine is in line and not rotated. The position of the shoulder is checked to ensure it is in an appropriate and comfortable position. The arm is placed in a short ulnar gutter support. Care is taken to ensure that chest wall is well protected from any clamps and metal equipment using gel pads and padding. The elbow can be manipulated during the procedure and can cause pressure areas if not appropriately protected. A surgical pre-scrub prior to routine skin preparation may be performed.
Intermittent calf compression Flotron devices are used during surgery to reduce the risk of thromboembolic disease unless there are any contraindications. Intravenous antibiotics are administered by the anaesthetist. The skin is prepared using Chlorohexidine solution starting at the hand, then onto the whole of the upper limb, up to and including the shoulder. Standard adhesive drapes are used. A tourniquet is not used as it commonly limit proximal exposure of the humerus.

Phase 1 (0-4 weeks):
Sling Immobilisation for comfort.
Wear continuously except for therapy and hygiene/bathing.
Active ROM exercises as tolerated.
Wrist, finger and elbow ROM and shoulder pendulum exercises
No muscle strengthening and avoid aggressive stretching and rotational
stress.
Phase 2 (4-8 weeks):
Discard sling as tolerated
Gradually increases ROM exercises. Stretching should continue to be
slow and to tolerance while avoiding pain.
Restrictions: No strengthening until fracture healing confirmed.
Phase 3 (8-12 weeks)
Shoulder PROM, AAROM and AROM.
Shoulder isometric strengthening with arms at side (IR, ER, scapular
stabilization). At 10 weeks add shoulder resistance strengthening exercises.
Progression should be gradual and in slow increments while avoiding pain.
Phase 4 (12-26 weeks)
Progressive upper-body strengthening may be more aggressive.
Patients ROM, strength and endurance
should be advanced progressively while avoiding pain.
Phase 5 (26+ weeks)
Exercises: Aggressive upper-body strengthening and with initiation of
plyometric training and sports or work specific training. Consider work
conditioning program based on patients job requirements
Restore normal shoulder function and progress to return to sport or
return to work.

Harkin FE, Large RJ. Humeral shaft fractures: union outcomes in a large cohort. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Nov;26(11):1881-1888. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.001.
Harkin et al. reviewed 126 consecutive humeral shaft fractures and found that there were statistically higher rates of non-union in conservatively managed fractures. In particular, patients with a psychiatric disorder including psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, multiple involuntary psychiatric admissions, or dementia, was significantly associated with nonunion after conservative management.
Scolaro JA, Voleti P, Makani A, Namdari S, Mirza A, Mehta S. Surgical fixation of extra–articular distal humerus fractures with a posterolateral plate through a triceps-reflecting technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Feb;23(2):251-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.020. Epub 2013 Dec 14.
A retrospective study over 5-years including 40 patients with an extra–articular distal humerus fracture treated with a triceps-reflecting approach and an anatomically precontoured posterolateral distal humerus plate followed up over an average of 88 weeks.
95% of patients went on to union. 20% of patients required a secondary procedure. The average QuickDASH score was 17.5. The average visual analog scale scores were 1.9 for pain, 2.3 for function, and 1.6 (range, 0-5) for quality of life. Thirty-five (87.5%) patients reported satisfaction with their outcome.
Trikha V, Agrawal P, Das S, Gaba S1, Kumar A. Functional outcome of extra-articular distal humerus fracture fixation using a single locking plate: A retrospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017 Sep-Dec;25(3):2309499017727948. doi: 10.1177/2309499017727948.
95% of patients went on to union. 20% of patients required a secondary procedure. The average QuickDASH score was 17.5. The average visual analog scale scores were 1.9 for pain, 2.3 for function, and 1.6 (range, 0-5) for quality of life. Thirty-five (87.5%) patients reported satisfaction with their outcome.
A retrospective case series of 36 patients with extra-articular distal humerus fractures were managed with extra-articular distal humerus plates with a mean of 15 months follow-up. 34 patients had complete radiological union within 3 months. Complications include one radial nerve palsy (completely resolved), 2 patients developed non-union.
Reference
- orthoracle.com