
==== Front
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
0936-8051
1434-3916
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39123065
5491
10.1007/s00402-024-05491-3
Orthopaedic Surgery
Short-term complication rates of open reduction and plate fixation and intramedullary nailing in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a propensity score matched analysis
http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9847-6053
Whitaker Sarah whitakerst@vcu.edu

1
Cole Sarah 1
O’Neill Conor 3
Satalich James 2
Schmidt R. Cole 2
Vanderbeck Jennifer 2
1 https://ror.org/02nkdxk79 grid.224260.0 0000 0004 0458 8737 Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA
2 https://ror.org/02nkdxk79 grid.224260.0 0000 0004 0458 8737 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA USA
3 https://ror.org/03wfqwh68 grid.412100.6 0000 0001 0667 3730 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC USA
9 8 2024
9 8 2024
2024
144 8 33613368
1 11 2023
28 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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/.
Introduction

This is a retrospective cohort study designed to compare short-term postoperative complication rates between closed humeral shaft fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus intramedullary nailing (IMN), as well as secondary independent risk factors for adverse outcomes.

Materials and methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried using CPT codes to identify patients that underwent an open reduction and plate fixation or intramedullary nailing procedure for a closed humeral shaft fracture from 2010 to 2021. Cohorts were matched using propensity scores to account for demographic differences and rates of complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

From the database, a total of 4,222 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria, with 3,326 and 896 undergoing ORIF and IMN respectively. After propensity score matching, 866 of the nearest-neighbor matches were included in each cohort for a total of 1,732 patients in the final analysis. The rate of any adverse event (AAE) was significantly higher in the ORIF cohort (16.3%) than the IMN cohort (12.1%, p = 0.01). The ORIF group had higher rates of postoperative transfusion (p = 0.002), return to OR (p = 0.005), and surgical site infection (SSI, p = 0.03). After multivariate analysis, ASA class 4, increasing age, increasing operative time, and history of bleeding disorder were found to increase the risk of AAE in both ORIF and IMN patients.

Conclusions

While prior studies have claimed higher complication rates in IMN patients, this study found a significantly higher short-term risk of AAE in ORIF patients when compared in matched cohorts. However, individual 30-day complication rates do not differ significantly between procedures, and both have been shown to be safe and effective tools in the management of humeral shaft fractures.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00402-024-05491-3.

Keywords

Humeral fracture
ORIF
Intramedullary nailing
NSQIP
issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Fractures of the humeral diaphysis comprise approximately 30% of humeral fractures and 3% of all fractures [1–3]. While many humeral shaft fractures are managed conservatively, when operative intervention is indicated, often either ORIF or IMN are viable fixation options. While ORIF is the most common method of surgical management for humeral shaft fractures, IMN has risen in popularity and is especially appealing in patients with polytrauma, pathological fractures, or osteoporotic fractures due to being a load-sharing implant with reduced destruction of surrounding soft tissue structures and preserved periosteal blood supply [2, 4, 5]. The decision between the two implants may become more important, as it has been shown that 25% of closed, displaced humeral shaft fractures treated nonoperatively went on to require surgery 12 months later for nonunion and ultimately achieved poorer overall outcome scores compared to individuals who initially underwent surgical fixation [6].

Literature comparing the outcomes of IMN and ORIF is mixed -- some studies have found no difference in operative statistics, functional outcomes, and union time, while others have noted worse outcomes in terms of postoperative complications such as reoperation, shoulder impingement, nonunion, and restricted range of motion with IMN [2, 7–12]. Multiple studies have cited an increased risk of postoperative radial nerve palsy following ORIF [2, 8, 13] while others have found no significant difference [3, 7, 9]. Other studies have noted statistically significant differences in these variables between IMN and ORIF with some finding worse outcomes with IMN [2, 3, 11, 12]. Other postoperative complications such as infection or blood loss also have contradictory findings, with several studies reporting ORIF to be a safer procedure overall in terms of increased risk of any postoperative complication, reoperation, shoulder impingement, restricted range of motion, and iatrogenic fractures [3, 8, 14, 15], and others finding IMN to have faster rates of union, lower infection rates, shorter operation times, less blood loss, and lower risk of severe complications [7, 9, 13].

Two prior studies have compared postoperative complications and patient demographics between ORIF and IMN using the NSQIP dataset [16, 17]. Putnam et al. concluded that there were no significant differences in terms of major or minor complications, length of stay, or readmission, but did find higher rates of mortality in the IMN cohort [16]. However, this publication only considered NSQIP cases performed between 2005 and 2016 and performed propensity score matching that did not take into account body mass index (BMI), race, bleeding disorders, diabetes, and smoking status. They did include peripheral nerve injury as a postoperative complication in their data, however, NSQIP guidelines that state this is an unreliable outcome to assess from their dataset after 2010 [16, 18]. The data from Burgmeier et al. agreed that IMN demonstrated a significantly higher postoperative mortality rate, and the authors theorized this finding could be due to the difference in age between cohorts, as they did not utilize a propensity score match in their analysis [17]. Similar to Putnam et al., they only extracted data from the NSQIP datasets from 2007 to 2015 whereas an additional 1,083 IMN and 2,989 ORIF have been recorded in the datasets from 2016 to 2021.

The primary objective of this retrospective comparative study is to utilize a large dataset with matched cohorts to compare 30-day postoperative complication rates between closed humeral shaft fractures treated with ORIF to those treated with IMN. Lastly, we will aim to identify independent risk factors for adverse events in surgically treated humeral shaft fractures.

Methods

To assess short-term outcomes between ORIF and IMN procedures for humeral shaft fractures, this study retrospectively reviewed data collected as a part of the ACS NSQIP database. Access to this information was provided by the ACS. This database gathers surgical data from a multitude of participating hospitals through a trained clinical nurse reviewer who collects prospective information on patient demographics, surgical procedure(s) and outcomes, concomitant conditions and risk factors, laboratory results, and 30-day complication rates [19]. Among participating institutions, the collection methods are standardized and require an interrater reliability rate of less than 5% at each site [20]. Prior studies have demonstrated less than 2% interrater disagreement rates, and sites are subject to routine audits for quality assurance [21, 22]. Overall, the NSQIP database has proven to be a reliable source of information in orthopedic and fracture fixation research [16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24].

In order to select patients for this study, the database was filtered using Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes to only select individuals who had undergone either an ORIF (24515) or IMN (24516) between the years of 2010 and 2021. Individuals were excluded on the basis of International Classification of Diseases Ninth and Tenth Revision (ICD-9, ICD-10) if they had one of the above surgeries for open humeral shaft fracture, stress fracture, pathological fracture, neoplastic disease, or metastatic disease or if they did not have an ICD diagnosis code for a humerus fracture. An additional six patients were found to have CPT codes for both ORIF and IMN and were thus removed from the study.

Once ORIF and IMN cohorts had been formed, a 1:1 propensity match was performed to account for bias in treatment assignment and imitate randomization. This matched subjects in each cohort on the basis of age, sex at birth, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification score, diabetes mellitus, bleeding disorders, hypertension requiring medication, steroid use, functional status, congestive heart failure (CHF), smoking status, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Each matched patient was then evaluated for length of stay, 30-day complications, and readmission rate. Complications included for evaluation consisted of wound dehiscence, superficial and deep surgical site infections (SSI), intubation complications including failure to wean or re-intubation postoperatively, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), cardiac arrest, urinary tract infection, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), pulmonary embolism (PE), postoperative transfusions, renal complications including insufficiency or failure, pneumonia, sepsis, and death. In addition to these variables, length of stay (LOS) from procedure to discharge above the mean value were analyzed.

To evaluate the significance of the results, statistical analyses were performed using RStudio software version 2023.06.1 + 524 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with a variety of strategies employed including multivariate and bivariate analysis and propensity score matching. Patient demographics, risk factors, and complications in both the unmatched and matched cohorts were analyzed with two-tailed T-tests for continuous variables or with chi-square tests for categorical variables. Depending on the outcomes of univariate testing, complication variables in the matched cohorts with a p value less than 0.05 were further compared using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Variables with a p-value less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

A total of 4,222 patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria were identified, of which 3,326 (78.8%) underwent ORIF and 896 (21.2%) underwent IMN (Table 1). Prior to matching, there were statistically significant differences in age, sex, BMI, operative time, length of hospital stay, outpatient status, ASA classification, estimated probabilities of morbidity and mortality, functional status, requirement of pre-operative blood transfusion, and history of dialysis, bleeding disorders, diabetes, COPD, and preoperative steroid use. Complete demographic information is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic and comorbidity characteristics for patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) for treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures

	ORIF
Unmatched (%)	IMN
Unmatched (%)	p-value	ORIF
Matched (%)	IMN
Matched (%)	p-value	
Patients, N (%)	3326 (78.8)	896 (21.2)		866 (50)	866 (50)		
Age (years, mean ± SD)	55.1 ± 20.7	64.9 ± 16.2	< 0.001	64.5 ± 16.4	64.1 ± 15.8	0.609	
BMI (kg/m2, mean ± SD)	30.3 ± 8.11	29.6 ± 7.91	0.0334	30.4 ± 7.75	29.8 ± 7.95	0.0883	
Male sex (%)	1251 (37.6)	286 (31.9)	0.0019	265 (30.6)	281 (32.4)	0.438	
Operative Time (mins)	131.8 ± 62.8	100.7 ± 54.9	< 0.001	129.5 ± 61.9	101.5 ± 55.1	< 0.001	
Length of Stay	2.31 ± 3.85	3.16 ± 5.39	< 0.001	2.94 ± 4.11	3.16 ± 5.46	0.343	
Outpatient status	1590 (47.8)	382 (42.6)	0.00661	365 (42.1)	377 (43.5)	0.593	
ASA Class	2.35 ± 0.76	2.67 ± 0.68	< 0.001	2.67 ± 0.67	2.66 ± 0.69	0.750	
 1 (no disturbance)	450 (13.5)	31 (3.46)	-	29 (3.35)	31 (3.58)	-	
 2 (mild disturbance)	1409 (42.4)	312 (34.8)	-	298 (34.4)	309 (35.7)	-	
 3 (severe disturbance)	1328 (39.9)	474 (52.9)	-	470 (54.3)	451 (52.1)	-	
 4 (life-threatening disturbance)	139 (4.18)	79 (8.82)	-	69 (7.97)	75 (8.66)	-	
 5 (moribund)	0	0		0	0	-	
Race							
 White	2338 (70.3)	712 (79.5)	-	689 (79.6)	686 (79.2)	-	
 Black	258 (7.76)	48 (5.36)	-	56 (6.47)	46 (5.31)	-	
 Asian	85 (2.56)	17 (1.90)	-	12 (1.39)	17 (1.96)	-	
 Other	33 (0.99)	9 (10.0)	-	7 (0.81)	9 (1.04)	-	
 Unknown	612 (18.4)	110 (12.3)	-	102 (11.8)	108 (12.5)	-	
Dependent functional status (partial or total)	174 (5.23)	88 (9.82)	< 0.001	74 (8.55)	75 (8.66)	1	
Current smoker	656 (19.7)	179 (20.0)	0.903	175 (20.2)	179 (20.7)	0.858	
Comorbidities N (%)							
 Congestive heart failure	37 (1.11)	14 (1.56)	0.356	14 (1.62)	13 (1.50)	1	
 Dialysis	16 (0.48)	12 (1.34)	0.00996	7 (0.81)	12 (1.39)	0.356	
 Steroid use	91 (2.74)	42 (4.69)	0.00423	38 (4.39)	42 (4.85)	0.731	
 Bleeding disorder	134 (4.03)	52 (5.80)	0.0274	51 (5.89)	49 (5.66)	0.918	
 Ascites	3 (0.090)	2 (0.22)	0.631	2 (0.23)	2 (0.23)	1	
 Pre-operative transfusion	49 (1.47)	24 (2.68)	0.0208	20 (2.31)	22 (2.54)	0.876	
 Diabetes	615 (18.5)	201 (22.4)	0.00919	208 (24.0)	201 (23.2)	0.734	
  IDDM	253 (7.61)	93 (10.4)	-	103 (11.9)	93 (10.7)	-	
  NIDDM	362 (10.9)	108 (12.1)	-	105 (12.1)	108 (12.5)	-	
 COPD	134 (4.03)	65 (7.25)	< 0.001	61 (7.04)	62 (7.16)	1	
BMI: body mass index; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Dialysis: acute or chronic renal failure requiring dialysis within 2 weeks of indexed procedure; IDDM: insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

After matching, 866 patients were included in analysis for both the IMN cohort and the ORIF cohort, for a total of 1,732 patients in the final analysis (Table 1). The average age across both cohorts was 64.3 years, average BMI was 30.1, and 31.5% of patients were male. No baseline demographic characteristics varied significantly between groups.

Outcomes

Detailed outcome information is presented in Table 2. After matching, the ORIF cohort had a significantly higher overall rate of adverse events than the IMN cohort (16.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.01) (Table 2). The ORIF cohort had a higher rate of postoperative blood loss requiring transfusions (11.9% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.002), surgical site infections (SSI) (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.03), and return to OR (3.8% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the other adverse events recorded. Additionally, the average operative time in the IMN cohort was significantly lower compared to the ORIF cohort (101.5 ± 55.1 vs. 129.5 ± 61.9, p < 0.001). There were no differences in length of stay or outpatient status between groups.

Table 2 Incidence of adverse events for patients undergoing ORIF vs. IMN

	ORIF
Unmatched	IMN
Unmatched		ORIF
Matched	IMN Matched		Overall
Matched	
No.	Rate (%)	No.	Rate	p-value	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	p-value	No.	Rate (%)	
Any adverse event	355	10.7	112	12.5	0.137	141	16.3	105	12.1	0.0132	246	14.2	
 Death	17	0.51	17	1.90	0.0034	5	0.58	12	1.39	0.0881	17	0.98	
 Wound dehiscence	5	0.15	1	0.11	0.766	3	0.35	1	0.12	0.317	4	0.23	
 Sepsis	20	0.60	7	0.78	0.578	11	1.27	6	0.69	0.223	17	0.98	
 Pulmonary embolism	10	0.30	3	0.33	0.874	2	0.23	2	0.23	1	4	0.23	
 Acute renal failure	7	0.21	1	0.11	0.471	4	0.46	1	0.12	0.179	5	0.29	
 Myocardial infarction	7	0.21	2	0.22	0.943	5	0.58	2	0.23	0.256	7	0.40	
 Cardiac arrest	3	0.090	2	0.22	0.424	2	0.23	2	0.23	1	4	0.23	
 Stroke	2	0.060	0	0	0.157	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	
 Transfusion	207	6.22	53	5.92	0.730	88	11.9	52	6.57	0.0015	140	8.08	
 DVT	11	0.33	5	0.56	0.397	4	0.46	4	0.46	1	8	0.46	
 UTI	24	0.72	12	1.34	0.133	9	1.04	12	1.39	0.510	21	1.21	
 Pneumonia	19	0.57	8	0.89	0.345	9	1.04	8	0.92	0.808	17	0.98	
 Intubation issues	12	0.36	4	0.45	0.728	6	0.69	4	0.46	0.526	10	0.58	
 SSI	49	1.47	6	0.67	0.0194	16	1.85	6	0.69	0.0319	22	1.27	
 Return to the OR	75	2.25	21	2.34	0.876	33	3.81	19	2.19	0.0487	52	3.00	
 Extended LOS	259	7.79	117	13.1	< 0.001	107	12.4	115	13.3	0.566	222	12.8	
Any adverse event (AAE): superficial and deep surgical site infection, organ space infection, wound dehiscence, renal failure, intubation (fail to wean or reintubation), post-operative transfusion, pneumonia, DVT, PE, UTI, stroke, cardiac arrest, MI, return to the OR, death; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; UTI: urinary tract infection; SSI: surgical site infection; LOS: Length of stay (extended: greater than 1 standard deviation above the mean); OR: operating room; Intubation issues: re-intubation or failure to wean from intubation

When accounting for all other variables, ASA 4 classification (OR = 1.197; CI = 1.073–1.335) and history of bleeding disorder (OR = 1.149; CI = 1.072–1.231) increased the odds of any adverse event postoperatively (Table 3). Additionally, increasing age (in 1-year intervals) (OR = 1.002; CI = 1.001–1.004) and increasing operative time (in 1-minute intervals) (OR = 1.001; CI = 1.0006–1.0011) modestly increased the risk of developing any adverse event postoperatively. These findings correspond with a 2.02% increase in adverse event rate with every additional 10 years of age and a 1.5% increase in adverse event rate with every additional 15 min of operative time.

Table 3 Odds of developing any adverse event during surgery as related to patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedure

Multivariable Analysis**	
		OR Coef.	95% CI	P-value	
Overall					
Age (1-year intervals)		1.002	1.001–1.004	< 0.001	
Operative Time (1 min intervals)		1.001	1.0006–1.0011	< 0.001	
Sex					
 Female		Ref	-	-	
 Male		0.994	0.959–1.029	0.716	
ASA class					
 1		Ref	-	-	
 2		0.956	0.873–1.048	0.336	
 3		1.043	0.949–1.146	0.384	
 4		1.197	1.073–1.335	0.0013	
Diabetes mellitus					
 IDDM		Ref	-	-	
 NIDDM		1.023	0.959–1.092	0.486	
 None		0.999	0.948–1.052	0.971	
COPD					
 No		Ref	-	-	
 Yes		0.995	0.935–1.060	0.883	
Bleeding Disorder					
 No		Ref	-	-	
 Yes		1.149	1.072–1.231	< 0.001	
Steroid Use					
 No		Ref	-	-	
 Yes		0.963	0.893–1.039	0.333	
** Variables are adjusted for all baseline characteristics; Reference procedure: ORIF

OR: Odds Ratio; Coef: coefficient; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; Ref: reference; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiology; NIDDM: Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus; IDDM: Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus

Discussion

Current literature on short-term complications rates following ORIF versus IMN is largely limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses of small cohort studies, and the few large, matched cohort studies preceding this one utilized older data without strong propensity matching. Our study showed a statistically significant increased rate of overall adverse events in patients who underwent ORIF as opposed to IMN, largely attributable to significantly higher rates of blood transfusion. On univariate analysis, ORIF was found to have higher rates of SSI, postoperative blood loss requiring transfusion, and return to the operating room.

Overall rates of all adverse events were 16.3% for ORIF and 12.1% for IMN. This is in line with previously quoted complication rates of 2.83-20.0% for ORIF [16, 17, 25–28]. These results support several recent studies who found that intramedullary nailing may be preferable over ORIF for management of humeral shaft fractures due to shorter time to union and lower rates of postoperative infection and iatrogenic radial nerve palsy [2, 9, 13, 29]. When analyzing specific complications, rates of postoperative blood loss requiring transfusion after ORIF were nearly twice as high as IMN. This is supported by recent findings by Beeres et al. who found decreased postoperative blood loss in patients who received IMN versus open plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures [13]. Our findings contradict, however, prior studies which report transfusion rates of 4.8-8.0% for ORIF [16, 17, 25, 27, 28] and 10.97-12.0% for IMN [16, 17]. This is likely due to a paucity of current research on short-term complication rates after IMN for proximal humerus fractures, with only Putnam et al. and Burgmeier et al. reporting transfusion rates following IMN. Both of these studies utilize data from an earlier time frame − 2007–2015 for Burgmeier et al. and 2005–2016 for Putnam et al. [16, 17]. Given that IMN has risen in popularity in recent years, the results of these studies are likely not representative of current complication rates following IMN. In addition, our study found that the rate of surgical site infection was significantly higher in the ORIF cohort. This is similar to findings by recent studies which report postoperative infection rates to be 0.5–6.8% for ORIF and 0.2–1.9% for IMN [2, 13, 29, 30]. Finally, more patients receiving ORIF returned to the operating room within 30 days when compared to patients receiving IMN. This supports recent studies with quoted reintervention rates of 1.7–12.6% for ORIF [13, 17, 25, 27, 28] and 1.2–9.7% for IMN [13, 17, 30].

Our study found no significant difference in mortality rates between the matched ORIF and IMN cohorts. This contradicts assertions by Burgmeier et al. and Putnam et al., who also utilized the ACS NSQIP database to compare ORIF and IMN outcomes. Both studies found significantly increased mortality rates in the IMN group compared to the ORIF group [16, 17]. However, both Burgmeier’s and Putnam’s studies used data from early time periods (2007–2015 and 2005–2016, respectively) and either did not utilize propensity score matching or utilized an algorithm that excluded key demographics, including BMI, smoking status, and more [16, 17]. Therefore, we believe these studies may be underpowered in their comparison of current mortality rates of ORIF and IMN. It is worth noting that prior to matching, the IMN cohort had significantly higher rates of several comorbidities, indicating that surgeons were likely opting for IMN over ORIF in high-risk patients, which may partly explain Putnam’s and Burgmeier’s findings.

Our study found increasing age and operative time to be independent risk factors for any adverse event (Table 3). While these results are statistically significant, their clinical significance appears to be modest. An ASA 4 classification and history of bleeding disorder were also associated with worse outcomes in the ORIF cohort (Table 3). This is consistent with studies analyzing predictive variables associated with major complications following shoulder surgery, which found increasing ASA classification to be an independent risk factor. [31, 32] These are important findings to consider on a case-by-case basis when determining a patient’s best option for treatment.

This study has several limitations. First, outcome variables are limited in the NSQIP database. While recent studies have focused on nonunion rates and time to union as primary outcomes when comparing IMN to open plate fixation, the NSQIP database does not include these variables as outcome data is limited to 30 days postoperatively. Therefore, no conclusions can be made with this data on nonunion rates or time to union. Meta-analyses by Amer et al., Beeres et al., and Wen et al. found no significant difference in nonunion rates between groups [2, 9, 13], but additional research using large, matched cohorts is needed. Second, our study did not investigate radial nerve palsy as an outcome due to lack of reliable data on peripheral nerve injury in the NSQIP database. The rate of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy following surgical treatment of humeral fractures is estimated to be between 3 and 19% based on recent studies [4, 15, 33, 34]. However, it is currently unknown whether the risk of iatrogenic radial nerve injury varies significantly between patients receiving IMN versus plate fixation [2, 3, 9, 13]. A third limitation of this study is the limited time period of postoperative follow-up. As previously stated, the NSQIP database only includes data for the 30-day postoperative period. However, short-term complication rates can be useful in predicting long-term outcomes. Additionally, patients with humeral shaft fractures requiring fixation are often multiply injured due to trauma [4]. Therefore, it is important to investigate not only long-term efficacy of fixation methods for such injuries, but also the incidence of severe, life-threatening short-term complications. Such investigation is critical for surgeons choosing a surgical approach and providing patients with accurate rates of severe complications. Therefore, despite the limitations of the NSQIP database in analyzing long-term outcomes and orthopedic-specific complications, the data it provides can help surgeons in their clinical decision making and during the informed consent process. Finally, our study does not explore newer operative options for humeral shaft fractures, namely minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO). Despite these limitations, our strict inclusion criteria, large patient number, and utilization of matched cohorts may improve research validity and provide more specific information for physicians considering treatment options for humeral shaft fractures.

Conclusion

This study found that patients undergoing ORIF for closed humeral shaft fractures have higher rates of overall short-term complications and, in particular, higher rates of blood transfusion, surgical site infection, and return to the operating room. Discussion surrounding operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures has recently favored IMN as the safer route, but most recent studies have not utilized propensity score matching. Therefore, this conclusion may not hold true when accounting for baseline demographic differences. Our investigation found that the overall adverse event risk was higher in patients receiving ORIF compared to IMN, though most outcomes do not vary significantly when analyzed individually. This study presents important and relevant data for surgeons to consider in clinical decision making for treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Declaration

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Publisher’s Note

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

1. Ekholm R Adami J Tidermark J Hansson K Törnkvist H Ponzer S Fractures of the shaft of the humerus: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY OF 401 FRACTURES J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006 88–B 11 1469 1473 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17634
Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S (2006) Fractures of the shaft of the humerus: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY OF 401 FRACTURES. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88–B(11):1469–1473. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17634
2. Amer KM Kurland AM Smith B Intramedullary Nailing Versus plate fixation for Humeral Shaft fractures: a systematic review and Meta-analysis Arch Bone Jt Surg 2022 10 8 661 667 10.22038/ABJS.2021.59413.2947 36258745
Amer KM, Kurland AM, Smith B et al (2022) Intramedullary Nailing Versus plate fixation for Humeral Shaft fractures: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Arch Bone Jt Surg 10(8):661–667. 10.22038/ABJS.2021.59413.294736258745
3. Zhao JG Wang J Wang C Kan SL Intramedullary nail Versus plate fixation for Humeral Shaft fractures: a systematic review of overlapping Meta-analyses Med (Baltim) 2015 94 11 e599 10.1097/MD.0000000000000599
Zhao JG, Wang J, Wang C, Kan SL (2015) Intramedullary nail Versus plate fixation for Humeral Shaft fractures: a systematic review of overlapping Meta-analyses. Med (Baltim) 94(11):e599. 10.1097/MD.0000000000000599
4. Updegrove GF Mourad W Abboud JA Humeral shaft fractures J Shoulder Elb Surg 2018 27 4 e87 e97 10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.028
Updegrove GF, Mourad W, Abboud JA (2018) Humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27(4):e87–e97. 10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.028
5. Zhang R Yin Y Li S Hou Z Jin L Zhang Y Intramedullary nailing versus a locking compression plate for humeral shaft fracture (AO/OTA 12-A and B): a retrospective study Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020 106 7 1391 1397 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.12.016 32089473
Zhang R, Yin Y, Li S, Hou Z, Jin L, Zhang Y (2020) Intramedullary nailing versus a locking compression plate for humeral shaft fracture (AO/OTA 12-A and B): a retrospective study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106(7):1391–1397. 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.12.01632089473
6. Obremskey W Closed Humeral Shaft fractures, internal fixation surgery did not improve functional outcomes at 12 months compared with nonoperative functional bracing JBJS 2021 103 4 356 10.2106/JBJS.20.02087
Obremskey W (2021) Closed Humeral Shaft fractures, internal fixation surgery did not improve functional outcomes at 12 months compared with nonoperative functional bracing. JBJS 103(4):356. 10.2106/JBJS.20.02087
7. 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 3 391 395 10.1007/s00264-006-0200-1 16900354
Changulani M, Jain UK, Keswani T (2007) 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 31(3):391–395. 10.1007/s00264-006-0200-116900354
8. Putti AB Uppin RB Putti BB Locked intramedullary nailing versus dynamic compression plating for humeral shaft fractures J Orthop Surg Hong Kong 2009 17 2 139 141 10.1177/230949900901700202 19721138
Putti AB, Uppin RB, Putti BB (2009) Locked intramedullary nailing versus dynamic compression plating for humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Surg Hong Kong 17(2):139–141. 10.1177/23094990090170020219721138
9. Wen H Zhu S Li C Chen Z Yang H Xu Y Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: an update meta-analysis Med (Baltim) 2019 98 46 e17952 10.1097/MD.0000000000017952
Wen H, Zhu S, Li C, Chen Z, Yang H, Xu Y (2019) Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: an update meta-analysis. Med (Baltim) 98(46):e17952. 10.1097/MD.0000000000017952
10. Merrill RK Low SL Arvind V Whitaker CM Illical EM Length of stay and 30-day readmissions after isolated humeral shaft fracture open reduction and internal fixation compared to intramedullary nailing Injury 2020 51 4 942 946 10.1016/j.injury.2020.02.001 32070557
Merrill RK, Low SL, Arvind V, Whitaker CM, Illical EM (2020) Length of stay and 30-day readmissions after isolated humeral shaft fracture open reduction and internal fixation compared to intramedullary nailing. Injury 51(4):942–946. 10.1016/j.injury.2020.02.00132070557
11. Singisetti K Ambedkar M Nailing versus plating in humerus shaft fractures: a prospective comparative study Int Orthop 2010 34 4 571 576 10.1007/s00264-009-0813-2 19506868
Singisetti K, Ambedkar M (2010) Nailing versus plating in humerus shaft fractures: a prospective comparative study. Int Orthop 34(4):571–576. 10.1007/s00264-009-0813-219506868
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 3 387 395 10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.007
Ouyang H, Xiong J, Xiang P, Cui Z, Chen L, Yu B (2013) Plate versus intramedullary nail fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: an updated meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22(3):387–395. 10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.007
13. Beeres FJP van Veelen N Houwert RM Open plate fixation versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg off Publ Eur Trauma Soc 2022 48 4 2667 2682 10.1007/s00068-021-01728-7
Beeres FJP, van Veelen N, Houwert RM et al (2022) Open plate fixation versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg off Publ Eur Trauma Soc 48(4):2667–2682. 10.1007/s00068-021-01728-7
14. 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 3 336 339 10.1302/0301-620x.82b3.9675 10813165
McCormack RG, Brien D, Buckley RE, McKee MD, Powell J, Schemitsch EH (2000) 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 82(3):336–339. 10.1302/0301-620x.82b3.967510813165
15. Wang X Chen Z Shao Y Xia Q Ma Y Fu D A meta-analysis of plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures J Orthop Sci 2013 18 3 388 397 10.1007/s00776-013-0355-8 23471713
Wang X, Chen Z, Shao Y, Xia Q, Ma Y, Fu D (2013) A meta-analysis of plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Sci 18(3):388–397. 10.1007/s00776-013-0355-823471713
16. Putnam JG Nowak L Sanders D Early post-operative outcomes of plate versus nail fixation for humeral shaft fractures Injury 2019 50 8 1460 1463 10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.014 31221428
Putnam JG, Nowak L, Sanders D et al (2019) Early post-operative outcomes of plate versus nail fixation for humeral shaft fractures. Injury 50(8):1460–1463. 10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.01431221428
17. Burgmeier R Bolia IK Gipsman A Jalali O Weber AE Plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of proximal humerus fractures: an ACS NSQIP-based comparative analysis over 8 years Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2021 31 1 33 41 10.1007/s00590-020-02734-y 32642807
Burgmeier R, Bolia IK, Gipsman A, Jalali O, Weber AE (2021) Plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of proximal humerus fractures: an ACS NSQIP-based comparative analysis over 8 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 31(1):33–41. 10.1007/s00590-020-02734-y32642807
18. User Guide for the 2014 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File (PUF). Published online October 2015
19. Khuri SF The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery Surgery 2005 138 5 837 843 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.016 16291383
Khuri SF (2005) The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery 138(5):837–843. 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.01616291383
20. Molina CS Thakore RV Blumer A Obremskey WT Sethi MK Use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Orthopaedic surgery Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015 473 5 1574 10.1007/s11999-014-3597-7 24706043
Molina CS, Thakore RV, Blumer A, Obremskey WT, Sethi MK (2015) Use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(5):1574. 10.1007/s11999-014-3597-724706043
21. Davis CL Pierce JR Henderson W Assessment of the Reliability of Data Collected for the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program J Am Coll Surg 2007 204 4 550 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.012 17382213
Davis CL, Pierce JR, Henderson W et al (2007) Assessment of the Reliability of Data Collected for the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 204(4):550. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.01217382213
22. Trickey AW Wright JM Donovan J Interrater Reliability of Hospital Readmission Evaluations for Surgical patients Am J Med Qual 2017 32 2 201 207 10.1177/1062860615623854 26911664
Trickey AW, Wright JM, Donovan J et al (2017) Interrater Reliability of Hospital Readmission Evaluations for Surgical patients. Am J Med Qual 32(2):201–207. 10.1177/106286061562385426911664
23. ACS NSQIP | ACS. Accessed July 21 (2023) https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/data-and-registries/acs-nsqip/
24. Osborne NH Nicholas LH Ryan AM Thumma JR Dimick JB Association of Hospital Participation in a Quality Reporting Program with Surgical outcomes and expenditures for Medicare Beneficiaries JAMA 2015 313 5 496 504 10.1001/jama.2015.25 25647205
Osborne NH, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Dimick JB (2015) Association of Hospital Participation in a Quality Reporting Program with Surgical outcomes and expenditures for Medicare Beneficiaries. JAMA 313(5):496–504. 10.1001/jama.2015.2525647205
25. Cognetti DJ Arana AA Hoof M Mason G Lin A Sheean AJ Short-term complications for proximal Humerus fracture surgery have decreased: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022 480 11 2122 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002391 36111889
Cognetti DJ, Arana AA, Hoof M, Mason G, Lin A, Sheean AJ (2022) Short-term complications for proximal Humerus fracture surgery have decreased: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Clin Orthop Relat Res 480(11):2122. 10.1097/CORR.000000000000239136111889
26. Bovonratwet P Suhardi VJ Andarawis-Puri N Ricci WM Fu MC Outpatient Surgical fixation of proximal Humerus fractures can be performed without increased rates of short-term complications or readmissions J Orthop Trauma 2021 35 10 e356 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002072 33813546
Bovonratwet P, Suhardi VJ, Andarawis-Puri N, Ricci WM, Fu MC (2021) Outpatient Surgical fixation of proximal Humerus fractures can be performed without increased rates of short-term complications or readmissions. J Orthop Trauma 35(10):e356. 10.1097/BOT.000000000000207233813546
27. Ramamurti P Quan T Swansen T Comparison of 30-day complications between reverse shoulder arthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2023 33 4 1117 1124 10.1007/s00590-022-03260-9 35429276
Ramamurti P, Quan T, Swansen T et al (2023) Comparison of 30-day complications between reverse shoulder arthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 33(4):1117–1124. 10.1007/s00590-022-03260-935429276
28. Cvetanovich GL Chalmers PN Verma NN Nicholson GP Romeo AA Open reduction internal fixation has fewer short-term complications than shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures J Shoulder Elb Surg 2016 25 4 624 631e3 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.011
Cvetanovich GL, Chalmers PN, Verma NN, Nicholson GP, Romeo AA (2016) Open reduction internal fixation has fewer short-term complications than shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25(4):624–631e3. 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.011
29. Gottschalk MB Carpenter W Hiza E Reisman W Roberson J Humeral Shaft fracture fixation: incidence rates and complications as reported by American Board of Orthopaedic surgery part II candidates JBJS 2016 98 17 e71 10.2106/JBJS.15.01049
Gottschalk MB, Carpenter W, Hiza E, Reisman W, Roberson J (2016) Humeral Shaft fracture fixation: incidence rates and complications as reported by American Board of Orthopaedic surgery part II candidates. JBJS 98(17):e71. 10.2106/JBJS.15.01049
30. Oldenburg KS Welsh ME Goodloe JB Friedman RJ Eichinger JK Outcome and complication comparison for intramedullary nail versus open reduction internal fixation in humeral diaphyseal fractures for 2800 matched patient pairs utilizing the Nationwide Readmissions Database J Orthop Surg 2023 18 1 442 10.1186/s13018-023-03663-2
Oldenburg KS, Welsh ME, Goodloe JB, Friedman RJ, Eichinger JK (2023) Outcome and complication comparison for intramedullary nail versus open reduction internal fixation in humeral diaphyseal fractures for 2800 matched patient pairs utilizing the Nationwide Readmissions Database. J Orthop Surg 18(1):442. 10.1186/s13018-023-03663-2
31. Singh JA Sperling JW Cofield RH Ninety day mortality and its predictors after primary shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 4,019 patients from 1976–2008 BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011 12 231 10.1186/1471-2474-12-231 21992475
Singh JA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2011) Ninety day mortality and its predictors after primary shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 4,019 patients from 1976–2008. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:231. 10.1186/1471-2474-12-23121992475
32. Shields E Iannuzzi JC Thorsness R Noyes K Voloshin I Postoperative morbidity by Procedure and patient factors influencing major complications within 30 days following shoulder surgery Orthop J Sports Med 2014 2 10 2325967114553164 10.1177/2325967114553164 26535274
Shields E, Iannuzzi JC, Thorsness R, Noyes K, Voloshin I (2014) Postoperative morbidity by Procedure and patient factors influencing major complications within 30 days following shoulder surgery. Orthop J Sports Med 2(10):2325967114553164. 10.1177/232596711455316426535274
33. Claessen FMAP Peters RM Verbeek DO Helfet DL Ring D Factors associated with radial nerve palsy after operative treatment of diaphyseal humeral shaft fractures J Shoulder Elb Surg 2015 24 11 e307 e311 10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.012
Claessen FMAP, Peters RM, Verbeek DO, Helfet DL, Ring D (2015) Factors associated with radial nerve palsy after operative treatment of diaphyseal humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(11):e307–e311. 10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.012
34. Schwab TR Stillhard PF Schibli S Furrer M Sommer C Radial nerve palsy in humeral shaft fractures with internal fixation: analysis of management and outcome Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018 44 2 235 243 10.1007/s00068-017-0775-9 28280873
Schwab TR, Stillhard PF, Schibli S, Furrer M, Sommer C (2018) Radial nerve palsy in humeral shaft fractures with internal fixation: analysis of management and outcome. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 44(2):235–243. 10.1007/s00068-017-0775-928280873
