Skip to main content

Table 2 Radiographic and fixation characteristics in patients requiring revision for aseptic mechanical failure (Group 1), and those who did not (Group 2)

From: Inadequate proximal screw fixation increases risk of failure following plate fixation of diaphyseal humerus fractures

 

Group 1

Group 2

p Value

N = 85

11

74

 

AO/OTA classification

n (%)

 12A

6 (55)

38 (51)

0.795

 12B

5 (45)

28 (38)

 

 12C

0 (0)

8 (11)

 

Comminution

 Yes

6 (55)

45 (61)

0.748

 No

5 (45)

29 (39)

 

Fixation type

 Rigid

10 (91)

68 (92)

1.000

 Bridge

1 (9)

6 (8)

 

Fracture location

 Proximal 1/3

1 (9)

5 (7)

0.767

 Middle 1/3

7 (64)

51 (69)

 

 Distal 1/3

3 (27)

18 (24)

 

% Involvement of shaft

  

0.068

 0–25%

11 (100)

49 (67)

 

 26–50%

0 (0)

22 (30)

 

 51–75%

0 (0)

2 (3)

 

 76–100%

0 (0)

0 (0)

 

Implant type

  

0.194

 3.5 mm LCDC plate

4 (36)

9 (12)

 

 4.5 mm narrow LCDC plate

1 (9)

7 (9)

 

 4.5 mm broad LCDC plate

0 (0)

15 (20)

 

 Proximal humeral locking plate

3 (27)

19 (26)

 

 Posterolateral distal humeral Plate

3 (27)

24 (32)

 

Muti-planar fixation

  

0.329

 Yes

9 (82)

67 (91)

 

 No

2 (18)

7 (9)

 

 ≥ 8 Cortices proximal fixation

  

0.008*

No

9 (82)

28 (38)

 

 Yes

2 (18)

46 (62)

 

 ≥ 8 Cortices distal fixation

  

0.040*

 No

7 (64)

22 (30)

 

 Yes

4 (36)

52 (70)

 
  1. Bold values are statistically significant
  2. p Value derived from Fisher’s Exact Test, p < 0.05 *
  3. Radiographic and fixation characteristics in patients requiring revision for aseptic mechanical failure (Group 1), and those who did not (Group 2) using Fisher’s Exact Test. The table demonstrates that factors that were significantly different between the two groups were proximal and distal fixation. We show that the mechanical failure group tended to have less than < 8 cortices of proximal fixation (p = 0.008) and less than < 8 cortices of distal fixation (p = 0.04)