Proximal humeral fractures are the third most common fracture among the elderly. Complications associated with fixation include screw perforation, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. To address these challenges, various augmentation techniques to increase medial column support have been developed. There are currently no recent studies that definitively establish the superiority of augmented fixation over non-augmented implants in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or bone-graft augmentation versus those who underwent locking-plate fixation without augmentation for proximal humeral fractures. The search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Articles involving patients with complex proximal humeral fractures treated using open reduction with locking-plate fixation, with or without augmentation, were considered. A meta-analysis of comparative studies comparing locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or with bone-graft augmentation versus locking-plate fixation without augmentation was performed.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the rates of union for vascularized versus non-vascularized grafting techniques in the operative management of scaphoid nonunion. Secondary aims were to determine the effect of the fixation techniques used, the source of grafting, as well as the influence of fracture location (proximal pole) and avascular necrosis (AVN). A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed in June 2021 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement and registered using the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. The primary outcome was union rate.Aims
Methods
