Objective To summarize a new type of proximal humerus fracture—proximal humerus degloving fracture, and discuss its injury mechanism, classification criteria, and treatment methods. Methods The clinical data of 23 patients with proximal humerus degloving fracture between September 2009 and September 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 14 males and 9 females, with an average age of 39.7 years (range, 21-66 years). The causes of injury was sprain in 2 cases, falling from height in 8 cases, and traffic accident in 13 cases. The time from injury to operation was 3-116 days (mean, 17.1 days). There were 2 cases of posterior dislocation of humeral head, 3 cases of anterior dislocation of humeral head, 3 cases of other fractures, and 2 cases of brachial plexus injury. All patients had varying degrees of rotator cuff injuries. According to the self-determined fracture classification criteria, there were 6 cases of internal rotation type, 14 cases of external rotation type, and 3 cases of abduction type. All patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation. Results All patients were followed up 9-24 months (mean, 17 months). All incisions healed by the first intention. X-ray films showed that all fractures healed at 3-5 months after operation (mean, 3.6 months). According to the Neer’s shoulder functional evaluation criteria at 6 months, the shoulder function was rated as excellent in 16 cases, good in 5 cases, fair in 1 case, and poor in 1 case, and the excellent and good rate was 84.6%. The rotator cuff tear recurred in 1 case and was repaired again. Conclusion The injury mechanism of proximal humerus degloving fracture may be the extreme internal rotation, extreme external rotation, or extreme abduction. Reduction and internal fixation is an effective treatment. The focus of the treatment is not only the fixation of the fracture, but also the repair and reconstruction of the rotator cuff.
ObjectiveTo compare the postoperative tibial malrotation between traditional minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and three-dimensional printing-assisted MIPO (3D-MIPO) for different types of tibial fractures, and explore the change of these differences.MethodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. The 120 patients with unilateral tibial fracture who met the selection criteria between January 2016 and October 2018 (40 patients in each of AO types A, B, and C) into the trial group (20 patients, 3D-MIPO) and the control group (20 patients, traditional MIPO) at ratio of 1∶1. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in gender, age, fracture site, and other general information. The bilateral tibial rotation angles were measured on the CT images within 1 week after operation, and the difference of tibial rotation angle between affected and unaffected sides was calculated. The tibial malrotation was defined when the difference exceeded 10°. The degree of tibial rotation and the incidence of malrotation between the two groups in different types of tibial fractures were compared. ResultsPostoperative infection occurred in 1 case, and improved after the dressing change and anti-inflammatory treatment. No complications such as loosening and displacement of internal fixation occurred. There was no significant difference in the difference of bilateral tibial rotation angles between the two groups in type A fractures after operation (t=0.559, P=0.580); while in types B and C fractures, the differences of bilateral tibial rotation angles in control group were significantly higher than those in trial group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in distribution of internal or external rotation between the two groups in types A, B, and C fractures (P>0.05). No malrotation occurred in type A fractures, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of malrotation between the two groups in type B fractures (P=1.000). The incidence of malrotation in control group was significantly higher than that in trial group in type C fractures (P=0.044).Conclusion3D-MIPO has the same anti-malrotation effect as traditional MIPO for type A tibial fracture, but for types B and C tibial fractures, the anti-malrotation effect of 3D-MIPO is significantly better than that of traditional MIPO. The more complex the fracture type is, the more significant this advantage is.