Comparison of the Speed of Functional Recovery (Constant Score) Between Two Different Approaches of Humeral Nailing in Humeral Fractures: Through the Rotator Cuff or Through the Rotator Interval Split (HUNAAP)

The aim of the study is to show if there is any speed difference of functional recovery for people with humeral fracture, treated by an anterograde nail, which will be inserted through the rotator cuff (the common way) or through the rotator interval split. The patients included in this study will be randomized to one of the two groups. The recovery will be evaluated by the Constant score over time, for a year. The main hypothesis is the rotator interval split approach allows a faster functional recovery after humeral nailing, by avoiding opening the rotator cuff.

Humeral fractures are the third most common fractures over 65 years and represent 8% of all fractures. The anterograde nailing is known to be an efficient way to treat humeral upper extremity fractures and humeral diaphysis fractures. The main complications of this nailing are pain, shoulder stiffness, rotator cuff tendinitis and impingement. Studies have proven these problems can be due to the entry portal of the nail. Indeed, it is inserted through the supra-spinatus tendon, which means an opening of the rotator cuff even if it is closed at the end of the procedure. But the rotator interval split in the shoulder can allow to insert the nail through it without opening the cuff or damaging the cartilage. It is located between the anterior side of the supra-spinatus tendon and the posterior side of the long part of the biceps. The aim of the study is to compare the speed of functional recovery according to the entry portal, which are through the rotator cuff or through the rotator interval split, in humeral fractures treated by anterograde nailing. The cutaneo-muscular approach will be the same in both groups, namely a trans-deltoid approach. People will be included in the study after an enlightened and signed consent, afterward they will be randomized to one of the two groups. To evaluate the primary outcome, the Constant Score will be used to measure the kinetic of the recovery. The secondary outcomes are residual pain (measured by the VAS an evaluation of complications and a radiological review (two different reviewers) to follow the healing and search any side effects, the sick leave and rehabilitation durations. The patients need to be available for a one-year follow-up. Each assessment will be checked at 21 and 45 days, and at 3, 6 and 12 months after the surgery.