Abstract
Aims
The primary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the health economic implications of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) of < 8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion.
Methods
From 2008 to 2017, 215 patients (mean age 57 yrs (17 to 18), 61% female (n = 130/215)) with a nonoperatively managed humeral diaphyseal fracture were retrospectively identified. Union was achieved in 77% (n = 165/215) after initial nonoperative management, with 23% (n = 50/215) uniting after surgery for nonunion. The EuroQol five-dimension three-level health index (EQ-5D-3L) was obtained via postal survey. Multiple regression was used to determine the independent influence of patient, injury, and management factors upon the EQ-5D-3L. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was considered cost-effective.
Results
At a mean of 5.4 yrs (1.2 to 11.0), the mean EQ-5D-3L was 0.736 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.697 to 0.775). Adjusted analysis demonstrated the EQ-5D-3L was inferior among patients who united after nonunion surgery (β = 0.103; p = 0.032). Offering routine fixation to all patients to reduce the rate of nonunion would be associated with increased treatment costs of £1,542/patient, but would confer a potential EQ-5D-3L benefit of 0.120/patient over the study period. The ICER of routine fixation was £12,850/QALY gained. Selective fixation based on a RUSHU < 8 at six weeks post-injury would be associated with reduced treatment costs (£415/patient), and would confer a potential EQ-5D-3L benefit of 0.335 per ‘at-risk patient’.
Conclusion
Routine fixation for patients with humeral shaft fractures to reduce the rate of nonunion observed after nonoperative management appears to be a cost-effective intervention at five years post-injury. Selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion based on their RUSHU may confer even greater cost-effectiveness, given the potential savings and improvement in health-related quality of life.
Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):566–572.
Take home message
Routine fixation for patients with humeral shaft fractures, in order to reduce the rate of nonunion observed after nonoperative management, appears to be a cost-effective intervention at five years post-injury with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,850 per quality-adjusted life year gained.
Selective fixation of patients at risk of nonunion (based upon a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures < 8 at six weeks post-injury) may confer even greater cost-effectiveness, given the potential savings and improvement in health-related quality of life.
Introduction
Humeral diaphyseal fractures are relatively common injuries, with an annual incidence of 12 per 100,000 adults.1 Nonoperative management using a humeral brace remains the default approach for many patients with isolated, closed humeral shaft fractures,2 partly because the functional benefits associated with operative fixation appear to be transitory with no significant advantage over bracing at one year post-injury.3,4
One of the principal differences between these two management strategies is the rate of nonunion, which is reported to be less than 3% after open reduction and compression plating,5 and 15% to 17% after nonoperative management.6,7 Given the potential impact of humeral shaft nonunion upon longer-term patient-reported outcomes,8,9 one of the most compelling arguments for offering fixation to more patients may lie in mitigating the detrimental effects of this complication upon patient function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Health economic analyses have been recommended as essential in rationalizing humeral shaft fracture management.10 The authors are aware of only one simple cost analysis comparing operative and nonoperative management of these injuries, but this did not account for the morbidity associated with nonunion that occurred in 25% of patients in that study.11 The authors are not aware of any published cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses comparing these treatment methods and accounting for the effect of nonunion upon patients’ HRQoL.
The primary aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures, in order to reduce the nonunion rate associated with nonoperative management. The secondary aim was to estimate the health economic implications of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) of < 8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion.
Methods
Study cohort
The cohort was retrospectively identified from an established database of adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with a humeral shaft fracture managed at the study centre.1 Inclusion criteria were patients with a fracture of the humeral diaphysis, sustained between January 2008 and December 2017, and undergoing initial nonoperative management (for at least 12 weeks post-injury). Exclusion criteria were patients with re-fractures, pathological fractures, periprosthetic fractures, patients undergoing initial operative fixation (within 12 weeks of injury), non-residents, and those with inadequate radiological follow-up. Patients who were unable to indicate their HRQoL (due to death, cognitive impairment, or having invalid contact details) were also excluded.
This study formed part of a larger audit of 291 humeral shaft fractures managed in the study centre.9 Of this larger study, as well as patients initially managed operatively (n = 64), patients who developed a recalcitrant nonunion following nonunion surgery (n = 4) and patients who declined operative management of their nonunion (n = 6) were excluded. Those with a delayed union following nonoperative management, defined as nonunion at six months with spontaneous union thereafter, without further surgical intervention (n = 2), were also excluded. The present study cohort therefore comprised 215 patients who met the above criteria. The larger study was assessed by the NHS Research Ethics Service (NR/161AB6) and registered with the local musculoskeletal quality improvement committee.
Patient and injury characteristics
Demographic and injury details were retrospectively obtained from medical records and radiographs. Fractures were classified using a picture archiving and communication system (Carestream Vue PACS; Carestream Health, USA), on the basis of fracture location and the AO-OTA classification.12
The majority of patients (70.7%, n = 152/215) had documented medical comorbidities. Most injuries were sustained during a fall from standing height (78.1%, n = 168/215). Half of fractures involved the middle-third of the diaphysis (53%, n = 114/215), with the remainder involving the proximal (34%, n = 73/215) or distal thirds (13%, n = 28/215). Two-thirds were AO-OTA type-A injuries (67%, n = 144/215), with the remainder type-B (31.6%, n = 68/215) or type-C (1.4%, n = 3/215). Two percent (n = 5/215) involved a concomitant radial nerve palsy at presentation, all of which were managed expectantly in a wrist splint and resolved without further intervention.
Management and union outcome
All patients underwent nonoperative management of their fracture, with initial plaster of Paris cast immobilization in the emergency department (ED) and subsequent application of a functional brace within the first two weeks of injury. Patients were generally advised to begin pendular shoulder exercises and range of motion exercises at the elbow, wrist, and hand following brace application. Complete details regarding humeral shaft fracture management in our centre have been published previously.9
Union outcome was determined through review of medical records and radiographs. Union was determined using established criteria, and was defined clinically as reduced/absent pain at the fracture site, and radiologically as bridging callus across all fracture cortices prior to clinic discharge.13,14 Nonunion was defined as a failure of the fracture to unite after 12 weeks of nonoperative management, with the requirement for subsequent nonunion surgery.4,15
Treatment cost estimation
The total cost of treatment was estimated on the basis of follow-up and union outcome (Table I). Costs were measured in pounds sterling (GBP) and based upon the English NHS Tariff 2020 to 2021,16 or departmental procurement costs where appropriate.
Table I.
Estimated minimum treatment costs by management and outcome.
| Nonoperative management, union | Nonoperative management, nonunion surgery | Initial operative management | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Cost, £ | Treatment | Cost, £ | Treatment | Cost, £ |
| Initial management | Initial management | Initial management | |||
| Humeral brace* | 50 | Humeral brace* | 50 | Major shoulder procedure for trauma without complication | 2,771 |
| Outpatient F/U (3 appts) | 302 | Outpatient F/U (3 appts) | 302 | Outpatient F/U (3 appts) | 302 |
| Physiotherapy (3 sessions)* | 255 | Physiotherapy (3 sessions)* | 255 | Physiotherapy (3 sessions)* | 255 |
| Nonunion management | |||||
| Major shoulder procedure for trauma with complication | 4,152 | ||||
| Additional outpatient F/U (6 appts) | 408 | ||||
| Additional physiotherapy (6 sessions)* | 510 | ||||
| Total cost | 607 | Total cost | 5,677 | Total cost | 3,328 |
-
Unless otherwise specified, costs were based on the ‘Payment by Results in the NHS: Tariff for 2020 to 2021’. The cost of initial emergency department management (including radiographs and immobilization; £230, NHS Tariff) was based on radiographs being a ‘high-cost investigation’ (HRG code V04).
-
*
Local procurement costs (from finance department).
-
F/U, follow-up.
All patients underwent initial ED management, including clinical assessment, radiographs, and plaster of Paris immobilization (total cost £230, NHS Tariff). This cost was assumed for all patients, and was therefore omitted from subsequent cost comparisons. Definitive nonoperative management was undertaken using one of two functional brace designs, the ProCare over-the-shoulder humeral fracture brace (DJO Global, USA) or the Clasby humeral brace (Beagle Orthopaedic, UK). The choice of brace was at the discretion of the treating surgeon, taking into account fracture location and configuration. Both braces had an approximate local procurement cost of £50. Nonunion surgery was considered as a day-case major shoulder procedure for a trauma complication (£4,152, NHS Tariff). Similarly, initial operative management was considered as a day-case major shoulder procedure for trauma without a complication (£2,771, NHS Tariff). Both tariffs included the cost of implants required for fixation.
Orthopaedic outpatient follow-up costs were estimated at £166 for the first attendance and £68 for each subsequent attendance (NHS Tariff). The cost of physiotherapy input was estimated at £85 per clinic attendance (local procurement cost). All patients were assumed to have received three outpatient follow-up appointments as per our standard departmental protocol (at two weeks, six weeks, and three months), and to have undergone three physiotherapy sessions following their initial management. Patients who united uneventfully were assumed to have been discharged from the outpatient clinic thereafter. Patients who developed nonunion were assumed to have received six additional outpatient appointments, both before and after their nonunion surgery. This group was also assumed to have undergone six additional physiotherapy sessions.17 All patients who underwent nonunion surgery were assumed to have undergone plate and screw fixation without the requirement for supplementary bone graft or biological adjuncts,18 and all subsequently united without further intervention.
Health-related quality of life
The EuroQol five-dimension three-level health index (EQ-5D-3L), obtained via postal survey, was used to measure patients’ HRQoL.19 The outcome assessed five domains (mobility, self-care, ability to perform usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) with patients asked to indicate their level of difficulty in each domain (no problems, some problems, extreme problems). A single health index was derived from patient responses, between -0.54 (worst possible health) and 1 (best possible health).
Cost-utility analysis
Comparison of union after nonoperative management and union after nonunion surgery (for failed initial nonoperative management) was based upon the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). This was calculated by dividing the difference in estimated total cost between groups by the difference in the resultant mean health index (i.e. EQ-5D-3L). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considers an intervention to be cost-effective if it results in a cost of less than £20,000 per QALY gained.20,21 The principal assumptions of the cost-utility analysis were: nonunion surgery involving simple plate and screw fixation (without bone grafting or biological adjuncts) would generate union after failed nonoperative management (i.e. recalcitrant nonunion rate negligible); initial operative management involving plate and screw fixation would generate fracture union (i.e. nonunion rate after initial fixation negligible); longer-term HRQoL (according to the EQ-5D-3L) would be equivalent after initial nonoperative and initial operative management, provided union had been achieved;3,4,8,9 and any difference in longer-term HRQoL (according to the EQ-5D-3L) resulting from nonunion after nonoperative management would be present throughout the preceding five years.
The Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures
The RUSHU is a tool used to identify patients at risk of nonunion following a non-operatively managed humeral shaft fracture, based on the presence of callus on anteroposterior and lateral radiographs at six weeks post-injury (Table II).22 Data from the original study suggested a RUSHU < 8 identified patients at risk of nonunion with a sensitivity of 75% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 65%.22 A subsequent external validation study suggested both the sensitivity and PPV may be as high as 78%.23
Table II.
Overview of Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures.
| Score per cortex | Callus |
|---|---|
| 1 | Absent |
| 2 | Present, non-bridging |
| 3 | Present, bridging |
We considered a hypothetical scenario involving three patients, all managed non-operatively and subsequently identified as being at risk of nonunion (based upon a RUSHU < 8). Based on a PPV of 65% we estimated that, if these three at-risk patients all underwent fixation at six weeks post-injury, two would avoid a nonunion and one (who may have progressed to union following non-operative management) would have undergone an ‘unnecessary’ fixation procedure. Based on a sensitivity of 75% we estimated that, for every four patients who ultimately developed nonunion, three would have been identified as potentially at risk (i.e. RUSHU < 8). We performed a separate cost-utility analysis to assess the potential health economic implications of using the RUSHU to identify at-risk patients.
Statistical analysis
Analysis was performed using SPSS v. 27.0 (IBM, USA). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for contingency tables. The statistical relationship between two groups of continuous non-parametric data was assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Significance was set at p < 0.05; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and two-tailed p-values were reported. Multiple linear regression was used to assess the independent influence of patient, injury, and management factors upon the EQ-5D-3L.
Results
Cohort summary
The cohort comprised 215 patients, of whom 60.5% were female (n = 130/215) and 39.5% male (n = 85/215). The mean age at injury was 57 years (17 to 85). Overall, 76.7% (n = 165/215) of patients united following initial management. The remaining 23.3% (n = 50/215) developed a nonunion, but subsequently underwent successful nonunion surgery at a mean of seven months (3 to 19).
Health-related quality of life
The mean survey follow-up was 5.4 years (1.2 to 11.0). The mean EQ-5D-3L for the study cohort was 0.736 (95% CI 0.697 to 0.775; range -0.536 to 1). The EQ-5D-3L was lower among patients who required surgery for nonunion (mean EQ-5D-3L 0.633 (95% CI 0.536 to 0.731; range -0.181 to 1)) compared with those who united after initial nonoperative management (mean EQ-5D-3L 0.767 (95% CI 0.726 to 0.808; range -0.536 to 1); p = 0.008, Mann-Whitney U test). Adjusted analysis indicated that union after nonunion surgery was independently associated with an inferior EQ-5D-3L (β 0.103 (95% CI 0.009 to 0.198); p = 0.032) (Table III).
Table III.
Multiple regression model showing factors independently associated with long-term Euro-Qol five-dimension three-level health index (EQ-5D-3L) following a humeral diaphyseal fracture (R2 = 0.295, adjusted R2 = 0.183; p < 0.001). All variables were entered into the model; data for variables significantly associated with EQ-5D-3L are presented.
| Predictors in the model | β (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Age at injury, yrs | 0.004 (0.001 to 0.008) | 0.025 |
| Medical comorbidities | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | -0.128 (-0.232 to -0.025) | 0.016 |
| Union outcome | ||
| After initial management | Ref | |
| After nonunion surgery | -0.103 (-0.198 to -0.009) | 0.032 |
| Employment status | ||
| Employed | Ref | |
| Unemployed/retired | -0.116 (-0.217 to -0.016) | 0.024 |
| Sports participation | ||
| Plays sport | Ref | |
| Does not play sport | -0.107 (-0.198 to -0.016) | 0.022 |
-
The following variables were entered into the model: patient sex; age at injury (yrs); medical comorbidities; BMI classification; Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile; injury energy; injury side (dominant/non-dominant); fracture location; AO-OTA classification; radial nerve palsy; associated injuries; union outcome; length of follow-up (yrs); smoking status; alcohol intake; employment status; and sports participation.
-
B, regression coefficient; CI, confidence interval.
Routine fixation to reduce nonunion rate
Offering routine fixation to all patients, in order to reduce the rate of nonunion associated with nonoperative management, would be associated with an increased overall treatment cost of £1,542 per patient (Table IV). However, based on the superior EQ-5D-3L among patients who initially united compared with those who required nonunion surgery (0.103 utility), the aggregated EQ-5D-3L utility benefit accrued over the five-year period of study follow-up was estimated to be 0.515. By preventing nonunion among 23.3% of the study cohort (n = 50/215), this approach would confer an estimated EQ-5D-3L utility benefit of 0.120 per patient over the five-year period of study follow-up (0.515 × 0.233). At five years post-injury, the ICER of routine humeral shaft fracture fixation was therefore estimated at £12,850 per QALY gained.
Table IV.
Estimated minimum treatment costs comparing fixation of established nonunion only cf. initial operative management in all patients.
| Scenario | Cost, £ |
|---|---|
| Routine nonoperative management (surgery for established nonunion only) | |
| Nonoperative management cost (n = 165) | |
| 165 × 607 | 100,155 |
| Nonunion surgery cost (n = 50) | |
| 50 × 5,677 | 283,850 |
| Total cost | |
| Overall | 384,005 |
| Per patient | 1,786 |
| Routine operative fixation (surgery for all patients) | |
| Initial operative management (n = 215) | |
| 215 × 3,328 | 715,520 |
| Total cost | |
| Overall | 715,520 |
| Per patient | 3,328 |
| Additional cost of routine operative fixation | |
| Total cost | |
| Overall | 331,515 |
| Per patient | 1,542 |
Selective fixation based on the RUSHU
For patients with a RUSHU < 8, the nonunion rate was assumed to be 65% (based on data from the original study).22 Therefore, offering selective fixation to our three hypothetical patients would result in an overall cost saving of £659 per patient (Table V). Moreover, as two of the three patients in this scenario would avoid nonunion surgery (instead achieving union after initial operative management), selective fixation would also confer an annual EQ-5D-3L utility benefit of 0.067 per patient (0.103 × 0.65). Over the five-year study period, it was therefore estimated this strategy would confer an EQ-5D-3L utility benefit of 0.335 per patient (0.067 × 5).
Table V.
Cost analysis of selective fixation based on Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures < 8.
| Scenario | Cost, £ |
|---|---|
| 3 patients with RUSHU < 8 (n = 3) | |
| No selective fixation (based on PPV 65%) | |
| 2 nonoperative management, nonunion surgery = 2 × 5,677 | 11,354 |
| 1 nonoperative management, union = 1 × 607 | 607 |
| Total cost | 11,961 |
| Selective fixation | |
| 3 operative fixation, union = 3 × 3,328 | 9,984 |
| Total cost | 9,984 |
| Cost saving | |
| Overall | 1,977 |
| Per patient | 659 |
| Nonoperative management, nonunion group (n = 50) | |
| No selective fixation | |
| 50 nonoperative management, nonunion surgery = 50 × 5,677 | 283,850 |
| Total cost | 283,850 |
| Selective fixation (based on sensitivity 75%) | |
| 38 operative management, union = 38 × 3,328 | 126,464 |
| 12 nonoperative management, nonunion surgery = 12 × 5,677 | 68,124 |
| Total cost | 194,588 |
| Cost saving | |
| Overall | 89,262 |
| Per patient | 1,785 |
| Nonoperative management group (n = 215) | |
| No selective fixation | |
| 165 nonoperative management, union = 165 × 607 | 100,155 |
| 50 nonoperative management, nonunion surgery = 50 × 5,677 | 283,850 |
| Total cost | 384,005 |
| Selective fixation (based on sensitivity 75%) | |
| 165 nonoperative management, union = 165 × 607 | 100,155 |
| 38 operative management, union = 38 × 3,328 | 126,464 |
| 12 nonoperative management, nonunion surgery = 12 × 5,677 | 68,124 |
| Total cost | 294,743 |
| Cost saving | |
| Overall | 89,262 |
| Per patient | 415 |
-
PPV, positive predictive value; RUSHU, Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures.
When applied to patients who ultimately went on to develop a nonunion in the study cohort (n = 50), we estimated that the RUSHU would have identified 38 patients at risk (based on a sensitivity of 75%).22 Selective fixation would result in an estimated cost saving of £1,785 per patient (Table V) and would confer an annual EQ-5D-3L utility benefit of 0.077 per patient ((0.103 × 0.75), equivalent to 0.386 per patient over the study period. Applied to the entire cohort (n = 215), selective fixation based on a RUSHU < 8 at six weeks following injury would result in a cost saving of £415 per patient (Table V) and would confer an annual EQ-5D-3L utility benefit of 0.018 per patient (0.103 × 0.233 × 0.75), equivalent to 0.090 per patient over the study period.
Discussion
This study includes a representative cohort of patients with a nonoperatively managed humeral shaft fracture, and has demonstrated that offering routine fixation to all patients would be a cost-effective intervention in terms of HRQoL at five years post-injury. Although routine fixation would be associated with additional treatment costs of £1,542 per patient, this approach would be cost-effective by potentially mitigating the longer-term impact of nonunion on HRQoL. Moreover, selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion based upon their RUSHU at six weeks post-injury may represent a pragmatic option, by conferring overall cost savings compared with routine nonoperative management and a net improvement in HRQoL.
In the only previous cost analysis of humeral shaft fracture management of which we are aware, Singhal et al11 analyzed 20 patients who underwent functional bracing, of whom 15 united and five (25%) developed a nonunion. The authors estimated the total cost of treatment for their cohort (15 successful nonoperative management + five failed nonoperative management requiring nonunion surgery) was £36,025 (£1,801 per patient), and that the total cost of routine fixation for all patients would have been £45,860 (£2,293 per patient). They concluded that functional bracing was efficacious and cost-effective. However, that study did not incorporate a patient-reported health index and was therefore unable to assess the potential utility of avoiding nonunion from the patients’ perspective.
One possible reason that functional bracing remains the default strategy for many patients with humeral shaft fractures is that the early advantages of initial fixation—in improving rates of union, reducing rates of malunion, and facilitating earlier functional recovery—have not been clearly demonstrated in existing randomized studies comparing operative and nonoperative management.3,4 Similarly, operative management does not appear to improve return to work or sporting activity after a humeral shaft fracture.24 In the absence of any clear benefit, it has been difficult to justify the operative risks and increased costs associated with routine fixation for patients with these injuries. However, considering the differential nonunion rate between nonoperative and operative management,6,7 and the increasing body of evidence that humeral shaft nonunion leads to inferior patient-reported upper limb function and health-related quality of life even after successful nonunion surgery,8,9 there may be longer-term advantages to operative fixation that have been previously underappreciated. This study attempts to quantify the longer-term utility of reducing the risk of humeral shaft nonunion, by offering early surgery to all patients. At five years post-injury, the estimated cost-effectiveness of routine humeral shaft fracture fixation fell below the NICE threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Our results therefore offer an alternative perspective to the position that most humeral shaft fractures are best managed nonoperatively in the first instance.
Though few surgeons would advocate a strategy of routine fixation for all patients with an isolated, closed humeral shaft fracture, a pragmatic option may lie in a strategy of selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion at an early stage in their nonoperative management. Accurately identifying these at-risk patients may present a challenge to surgeons treating them, but baseline clinical risk factors25,26 and fracture mobility at six weeks post-injury27 have been suggested as valid options. The present study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a published radiological scoring system,22 and found that selective fixation based on the RUSHU may actually result in lower overall treatment costs, as well as conferring a benefit in terms of QALYs gained. Selective fixation based on the RUSHU may represent a compromise that facilitates a rational increase in the rate of operative fixation performed for patients with humeral shaft fractures.
This large study reports generalizable data regarding treatment costs and longer-term HRQoL in a typical humeral shaft fracture population. Of note, this analysis is based on the ‘best-case scenario’ regarding nonunion surgery; had it been possible to factor in the potentially increased rate of complications following nonunion surgery (compared with initial fixation) and the indirect societal costs of nonunion (e.g. loss of productivity), the benefits of routine fixation may have been even more pronounced. Moreover, a move away from the default nonoperative approach may have a synergistic effect, as a more general resort to initial operative fixation could feasibly reduce the costs of surgical treatment and improve operative outcomes as caseload increases.
The principal limitation of this study was the retrospective design. Costs reflected those in the English NHS, but we recognize that the NHS Tariff is not equivalent to the total healthcare cost and that treatment costs may vary considerably across different health systems. We also acknowledge the assumptions upon which the cost-utility analysis was based, and that published nonunion rates following nonunion surgery and initial operative fixation are invariably slightly higher than 0%. Likewise, other complications such as radial nerve palsy and infection were not accounted for in the analysis, although many comparative studies have found these to be broadly equivalent between nonoperative and operative management.6,7 Prospective randomized studies of humeral shaft fracture management, incorporating detailed health economic analyses that account for both direct and indirect costs associated with these injuries, will hopefully provide robust evidence relating to cost-effectiveness.28,29
References
1. Oliver WM , Searle HKC , Ng ZH , Wickramasinghe NRL , Molyneux SG , White TO . Fractures of the proximal- and middle-thirds of the humeral shaft should be considered as fragility fractures: an epidemiological study of 900 consecutive injuries . Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 11 ): 1475 – 1483 . Google Scholar
2. Sarmiento A , Kinman PB , Galvin EG , Schmitt RH , Phillips JG . Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1977 ; 59-A ( 5 ): 596 – 601 . PubMed Google Scholar
3. Matsunaga FT , Tamaoki MJS , Matsumoto MH , Netto NA , Faloppa F , Belloti JC . Minimally invasive osteosynthesis with a bridge plate versus a functional brace for humeral shaft fractures: a randomized controlled trial . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2017 ; 99-A ( 7 ): 583 – 592 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Rämö L , Sumrein BO , Lepola V , et al. Effect of surgery vs functional bracing on functional outcome among patients with closed displaced humeral shaft fractures: the FISH randomized clinical trial . JAMA . 2020 ; 323 ( 18 ): 1792 – 1801 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Beeres FJP , van Veelen N , Houwert RM , et al. 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 . 2021 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Lode I , Nordviste V , Erichsen JL , Schmal H , Viberg B . Operative versus nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis . J Shoulder Elbow Surg . 2020 ; 29 ( 12 ): 2495 – 2504 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. van de Wall BJM , Ochen Y , Beeres FJP , et al. Conservative vs. operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies . J Shoulder Elbow Surg . 2020 ; 29 ( 7 ): 1493 – 1504 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Rämö L , Paavola M , Sumrein BO , Lepola V , Lähdeoja T , Ranstam J . Outcomes with surgery vs functional bracing for patients with closed, displaced humeral shaft fractures and the need for secondary surgery: A prespecified secondary analysis of the FISH randomized clinical trial . JAMA Surg . 2021 ; 156 ( 6 ): 1 – 9 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. Oliver WM , Searle HKC , Molyneux SG , White TO , Clement ND , Duckworth AD . Factors associated with patient-reported outcomes following a humeral shaft fracture: Nonunion results in a poorer outcome despite union after surgical fixa . J Orthop Trauma . 2022 ; 36 ( 6 ): e227 – e235 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Clement ND . Management of humeral shaft fractures; non-operative versus operative . Arch Trauma Res . 2015 ; 4 ( 2 ): e28013 . Crossref Google Scholar
11. Singhal R , Stewart P , Charalambous CP . A pre-fabricated bracing system for the management of humeral shaft fractures: experience of a centre in the United Kingdom . Ortop Traumatol Rehabil . 2015 ; 17 ( 5 ): 463 – 470 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Meinberg EG , Agel J , Roberts CS , Karam MD , Kellam JF . Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018 . J Orthop Trauma . 2018 ; 32 ( Suppl 1 ): S1 – S170 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
13. Morshed S , Corrales L , Genant H , Miclau T . Outcome assessment in clinical trials of fracture-healing . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2008 ; 90-A ( Suppl 1 ): 62 – 67 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Wiss DA , Garlich JM . Healing the index humeral shaft nonunion: risk factors for development of a recalcitrant nonunion in 125 patients . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2020 ; 102-A ( 5 ): 375 – 380 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. Ali E , Griffiths D , Obi N , Tytherleigh-Strong G , Van Rensburg L . Nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures revisited . J Shoulder Elbow Surg . 2015 ; 24 ( 2 ): 210 – 214 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. No authors listed . National tariff payment system documents, annexes and supporting documents. Payment by Results in the NHS: Tariff for 2020-2021 . NHS Digital . https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/national-tariff-payment-system-documents-annexes-and-supporting-documents/ ( date last accessed 24 June 2022 ). Google Scholar
17. Nicholson JA , Clement N , Goudie EB , Robinson CM . Routine fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures is not cost-effective: a cost analysis from a randomized controlled trial . Bone Joint J . 2019 ; 101-B ( 8 ): 995 – 1001 . Crossref Google Scholar
18. Oliver WM , Molyneux SG , White TO , Clement ND , Duckworth AD , Keating JF . Open reduction and internal fixation for humeral shaft nonunion: bone grafting is not routinely required and avoids donor site morbidity . J Orthop Trauma . 2021 ; 35 ( 8 ): 414 – 423 . Crossref Google Scholar
19. EuroQol Group . EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life . Health Policy . 1990 ; 16 ( 3 ): 199 – 208 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
20. Devlin N , Parkin D . Does NICE have A cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis . Health Econ . 2004 ; 13 ( 5 ): 437 – 452 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. No authors listed . Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 . National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword ( date last accessed 1 July 2022 ). Google Scholar
22. Oliver WM , Smith TJ , Nicholson JA , et al. The Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) predicts humeral shaft nonunion . Bone Joint J . 2019 ; 101-B ( 10 ): 1300 – 1306 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
23. Dekker AP , Chuttha S , Tambe AA , Clark DI . Predicting the behavior of humeral shaft fractures: an independent validation study of the Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral Fractures and value of assessing fracture mobility . J Orthop Trauma . 2021 ; 35 ( 10 ): 555 – 559 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
24. Oliver WM , Molyneux SG , White TO , Clement ND , Duckworth AD . Return to work and sport after a humeral shaft fracture . Bone Jt Open . 2022 ; 3 ( 3 ): 236 – 244 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. Broadbent MR , Will E , McQueen MM . Prediction of outcome after humeral diaphyseal fracture . Injury . 2010 ; 41 ( 6 ): 572 – 577 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
26. Oliver WM , Searle HKC , Ng ZH , et al. Factors associated with humeral shaft nonunion . J Shoulder Elbow Surg . 2021 ; 30 ( 10 ): 2283 – 2295 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
27. Driesman AS , Fisher N , Karia R , Konda S , Egol KA . Fracture site mobility at 6 weeks after humeral shaft fracture predicts nonunion without surgery . J Orthop Trauma . 2017 ; 31 ( 12 ): 657 – 662 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Oliver WM , Carter TH , Graham C , et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial of operative versus non-operative management of fractures of the humeral diaphysis: the HUmeral Shaft Fracture FIXation (HU-FIX) Study protocol . Trials . 2019 ; 20 ( 1 ): 475 . Crossref Google Scholar
29. No authors listed . The humeral shaft fracture trial (HUSH): surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in patients aged 18 years or older . ISRCTN Registry . https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17108318 ( date last accessed 24 June 2022 ). Google Scholar
Author contributions
W. M. Oliver: Conceptualization, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
S. G. Molyneux: Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
T. O. White: Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
N. Clement: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
A. Duckworth: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Funding statement
The authors received no financial or material support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ICMJE COI statement
N. Clement is an editorial board member of The Bone & Joint Journal and Bone & Joint Research. A. D. Duckworth reports research grants from NIHR, OTA, and SORT-IT, institutional research grants from Stryker, Smith & Nephew, and Acumed, royalties from Taylor & Francis and Elsevier, and a speaker payment from AgNovos Healthcare, all unrelated to this study. A. D. Duckworth is also an editorial board member of The Bone & Joint Journal, Bone & Joint Research, and Bone & Joint 360, an Associate Editor for Trials, OTAI, and JBJS Case Connector, and a member of the OTA and OTS Research Committees. S. G. Molyneux and T. O. White report institutional research grants from Acumed and Smith & Nephew, unrelated to this study. T. O. White also reports royalties from Elsevier, unrelated to this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Deborah Ketchen, Deborah MacDonald, Henry Searle and Keri Swain for their invaluable assistance in administering postal surveys. The authors would also like to acknowledge the Scottish Orthopaedic Research Trust into Trauma (SORT-iT).
Ethical review statement
This study underwent NHS Research Ethics Service assessment (NR/161AB6) and was registered with the local musculoskeletal quality improvement committee.
Open access funding
The open access fee for this study was provided by the Orthopaedic Trauma Endowment Fund (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh).
Follow W. M. Oliver @OrthoOliver
Follow S. G. Molyneux @sgmolyneux
Follow A. D. Duckworth @DuckworthOrthEd
Follow Edinburgh Orthopaedics @EdinOrthopaedic and the Usher Institute @EdinUniUsher
© 2022 Author(s) et al.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
