Intramedullary Nailing with and without the Use of Bone Cement for Impending and Pathologic Fractures of the Humerus in Multiple Myeloma and Metastatic Disease.

Abstract

Although intramedullary nailing (IMN) is considered the standard of care for the surgical management of most femur metastatic diseases, the optimal treatment of metastatic humeral impending and/or pathologic fractures is still debatable. Moreover, the use of cemented humeral nails has not been thoroughly studied, and only a few small series have compared their results with uncemented nails. The purpose of this study was to compare the (1) survivorship, (2) functional outcomes, and (3) perioperative complications in patients receiving cemented versus uncemented humerus IMN for impending or complete pathologic fractures resulting from metastatic disease or multiple myeloma. We retrospectively reviewed 100 IMNs in 82 patients, of which 53 were cemented and 47 were uncemented. With a mean survival of 10 months (Cemented: 8.3 months vs. Uncemented: 11.6 months, p = 0.34), the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores increased from 42.4% preoperatively (Cemented: 40.2% vs. Uncemented: 66.7%, p = 0.01) to 89.2% at 3 months postoperatively (Cemented: 89.8% vs. Uncemented: 90.9%, p = 0.72) for the overall group (p < 0.001). Both cohorts yielded comparable complication rates (overall [22.6% vs. 19.1%)], surgical ([11.3% vs. 4.3%], and medical [13.2% vs. 14.9%], all p > 0.05), but estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the cemented group (203 mL vs. 126 mL, p = 0.003). Thus, intramedullary nailing, with and without cement augmentation in select patients, is a relatively safe and effective therapeutic modality for metastatic humeral disease with similar clinical outcomes and acceptable complication rates. While controlling for possible selection bias, larger-scale, higher-level studies are warranted to validate our results.