Biomimetic scaffold design for functional and integrative tendon repair.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 11. Musculoskelet Surg. 2026 Jun;110(2):191-198. doi: 10.1007/s12306-025-00919-4. Epub 2025 Sep 6. Comparison between anterolateral standard and percutaneous antero-acromial approach in humeral intramedullary nailing (IMN). A radiological, functional, and ultrasound rotator cuff evaluation prospective study. Pautasso A(1), Puricelli M(2), Morlacchi D(3), Discalzo GA(2), De Falco G(2), Pilato G(2)(4), D'Angelo F(2)(4). Author information: (1)Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, ASST Sette Laghi-Circolo Hospital and Macchi Foundation in Varese University Center, Viale Luigi Borri, 57, 21100, Varese, Italy. andrea009@alice.it. (2)Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, ASST Sette Laghi-Circolo Hospital and Macchi Foundation in Varese University Center, Viale Luigi Borri, 57, 21100, Varese, Italy. (3)Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Studies Milan, Piazza Cardinal Ferrari 1, 20122, Milan, Italy. (4)Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences (DBSV), University of Studies Insubria, Via J.H. Dunant, 3, 21100, Varese, Italy. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiological-functional outcomes and rotator cuff (RC) status following humeral intramedullary nailing (IMN), comparing the anterolateral standard approach (group 1) and the percutaneous antero-acromial approach (group 2). METHODS: This observational prospective monocentric study was conducted from August 2021 to March 2023. Inclusion criteria included: two-parts proximal (surgical neck) and diaphyseal Humeral fractures treated with IMN; 12-month follow-up; age between 18 and 85 years; good performance status (excluding neurologic deficits or mental disorders). Evaluations included RC status via ultrasound, Constant, DASH, and SPADI scores, as well as fracture healing times. A T-test was used or statistical analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled during the study period (34 in group 1; 27 in group 2). The mean bone healing time resulted 2.9 ± 0.5 months in group 1 and 2.4 ± 0.7 months in group 2, with a statistically significant reduction of 17% in favor of group 2 (p