Skip to main content

Operative treatment of nonunions in the elderly: Clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients at minimum 75 years of age



Limited information exists on nonunion treatment in the elderly. This retrospective study evaluates whether results of operative treatment of nonunion of the humerus or femur in patients aged ≥ 75 years are comparable to those in younger patients.


We identified patients age ≥ 75 years with a nonunion of humerus or femur treated with open reduction and internal fixation. The Non-Union Scoring System was calculated. Complications, clinical outcome, and radiographic findings were assessed. Primary endpoint was nonunion healing. A literature review compared time to healing of humeral and femoral nonunion in younger populations.


We identified 45 patients treated for a nonunion of humerus or femur with > 12 months follow-up. Median age was 79 years (range 75–96). Median time to presentation was 12 months (range 4–127) after injury, median number of prior surgeries was 1 (range 0–4). Union rate was 100%, with median time to union 6 months (range 2–42). Six patients underwent revision for persistent nonunion and healed without further complications.


Using a protocol of debridement, alignment, compression, stable fixation, bone grafting and early motion, patients aged 75 years or older can reliably achieve healing when faced with a nonunion of the humerus or femur.

Level of Evidence: IV.

Peer Review reports


Musculoskeletal problems in the elderly are seldom fatal, but quality of life and function is often severely affected after impaired fracture healing. Fortunately, bone has intrinsic capacity to heal after a fracture [1]. This reparative (almost regenerative) potential is surprisingly well maintained throughout life [2]. The complex but well-orchestrated events seen after a fracture closely resemble bone development during embryogenesis and, in the majority of cases, leads to complete healing and restoration of pre-fracture mobility and function [3]. A small subset of patients will develop a nonunion [4]. To complicate matters, there is no consensus as to what defines a nonunion. One pragmatic definition is “a fracture that will not heal without surgical intervention” [5].

Risk factors for development of a nonunion are numerous. There are fracture-related factors (e.g., open injuries, and devitalized segments), patient-related factors (ex. nutrition, comorbidities, and smoking), and medication factors. Additionally, there are surgeon-related factors such as surgical technique (ex. biologically friendly versus extensile dissections), mechanical stability provided, and quality of reduction [6]. Finally, infection can play a significant role, especially if the nonunion presents after attempted surgical intervention.

Whether age is an independent risk factor for nonunion remains unclear. There is evidence that bone repair is delayed in the elderly compared to younger patients [7,8,9]. Recent studies (animal and human) elucidated small but potentially important differences between fracture healing in these two age groups [9,10,11]. With increased aging, there are less mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) or osteoprogenitor cells [7, 8, 11,12,13]. Stem cells from elderly patients produce less bone than those from younger individuals [14]. MSCs in the elderly differentiate more into adipocytes rather than osteoblasts [15]. Additionally, recent studies suggest an increased inflammatory state in the elderly, known as inflamm-aging, triggers skeletal stem/progenitor cell dysfunction and cell senescence [12, 13]. Despite progress made during recent decades in fracture treatment, the overall incidence of non-unions remains 2–5% for all fracture types [16, 17]. Higher incidence of failure in nonunion surgery is expected in elderly given their delayed bone repair. Furthermore, the number of elderly patients requiring nonunion treatment will grow due to rising life expectancy [18, 19].

In most patients, a nonunion is a disabling condition resulting in pain, reduced activity levels, and inability to return to the pre-injury functional status [20]. A nonunion may even have a higher impact upon the elderly population, who often have compromised self-reliance and mobility, and lead to increased need for long-term nursing homecare, decreased quality of life, social isolation, depression, and decreased self-confidence [21].

The goal of nonunion surgery in the elderly is achieving the highest functional recovery. This can be accomplished with prosthetic replacement in some cases. Prosthetic replacement has a role in nonunion of the femoral neck, distal femur, as well as in the proximal humerus and distal humerus. However, most nonunions will require formal open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and potentially bone grafting [22, 23]. There are many challenging issues for any type of ORIF in the elderly, which often include a combination of decreased soft tissue quality, prior scar tissue, poor bone stock, and joint stiffness of the affected limb. The same age-related comorbidities that compromise fracture healing (e.g., diabetes, malnutrition, osteoporosis, osteopenia, and polypharmacy including chronic opioid use) increase the complexity level of operative fracture treatment and after-care in the elderly [7, 9, 18, 24].

Although many studies have reported on patient outcomes following nonunion treatment, to date no studies have reported outcomes of nonunion treatment in patients aged 75 years or older [25, 26]. Specifically, we were interested in whether treatment of nonunions of the humerus and femur resulted in similar osseus union rates and time to union in the elderly as compared to younger cohorts reported in the literature. Thus, the first purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of operative nonunion treatment in patients aged 75 years or older. We assessed the rate of radiographic and clinical time to osseous union, subsequent surgeries, and complications. We then compared our results with findings from the literature.


Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this retrospective research study. All patients aged 75 years or older with an operatively treated nonunion of the humerus or femur between 1996–2019 were identified in two tertiary referral centers (Hospital for Special Surgery and Amsterdam Medical Center). Other nonunion locations were excluded (n = 15). All patients were treated by three fellowship-trained orthopedic trauma surgeons on this study (DLH, PK, and DSW). Exclusion criteria consisted of pathologic fractures and follow-up less than 12 months (n = 30). All data were prospectively recorded in orthopedic trauma databases. The fracture leading to the nonunion was classified according to the AO/OTA classification (including the periprosthetic classification) [27]. Nonunion type was classified according to Weber and Çech and the Non-Union Scoring System (NUSS) according to Calori et al. which combines nonunion type and previous treatment with patient characteristics (e.g., ASA-score, comorbidity, medication, blood tests) [28, 29]. The NUSS ranges from 0–100 points, with 0–25 points representing a straightforward nonunion. A score of 75–100 indicates the need for amputation, arthrodesis or prosthetic replacement [30, 31]. Radiographic assessment included presence or absence of bone healing (cortical bridging of at least 3 cortices) using standard radiographs and/or CT-scan [32]. Subsequent revision surgery to achieve bony union and post-operative complications were also documented. Patients were seen at regular intervals (6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 months). Clinical outcome was based on pain and ability to weight-bear (for femur nonunion). Patient demographics are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic patient data

Surgical technique

The type of surgery was at the discretion of the treating surgeon involved in their care. Two of the three treating surgeons in this study were fellowship trained by the third. Given this training background, there were only minor differences in surgical tactics and choice of fixation. All surgeries included infection screening using tissue sampling before administration of intravenous antibiotics (2gm cephalosporin). For distal and shaft nonunion, a tourniquet was used at 250 mm Hg up to a maximum of 2 h. Whenever possible, the previous scar tissue was utilized for the surgical approach. After exposure, all failed or loose hardware was removed. For oligotrophic and atrophic nonunions, intervening soft tissues were removed with a combination of scalpel, curette or ronguer. The medullary canal was drilled open, or the sclerotic end cap was removed with an oscillating saw. Debridement progressed until healthy bleeding bone was visible at both nonunion ends. For well-aligned hypertrophic nonunion, the intervening tissue of the nonunion was left intact. For distal femur and distal humerus nonunion with limited motion due to contracture and/or adhesions, a formal soft tissue release was performed [23, 33]. Reduction and temporary fixation was provided by K-wires, reduction clamps, and/or small plates. Depending on nonunion type and location and prior fixation, definitive fixation consisted of compression plating or nailing. When plating was selected, the surgical strategy consisted of, whenever possible, relatively long plates with hybrid fixation and compression across the nonunion site with rigid fixation [34]. Plating was performed in all humeral nonunions. We strongly prefer plating, as results of intramedullary nails for upper extremity long bone nonunions are potentially inferior [35, 36] For midshaft femur nonunion, either plates or nails were selected depending on nonunion type and surgeon preference. For nonunion in the meta-diaphyseal area of the femur, plating was performed.

Bone graft utilization was dependent on nonunion type. In most oligotrophic nonunions, and in all atrophic nonunions, bone graft was utilized. Iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) was used throughout the study period, as was demineralized bone matrix (DBM, Johnson&Johnson/DePuy/Synthes, Paoli, PA, and Osteotech, Eatontown, NJ). Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP-2; Infuse, Medtronic Minneapolis, MN) was used in isolated cases. For large defects, fibula allograft or tricortical ICBG were used for structural support.

Literature search

A literature search was completed (PubMed/Google Scholar) using search terms “nonunion”, “non-union”, “delayed union”, “femur”, “humerus”. Selection criteria were: i) time to union being measured, ii) a minimum of 6 patients, iii) age provided, and iv) English language. We compared our results with published findings in younger patients. A multi-variate regression analysis (corrected for sample size) was run to predict time to union based on age and location (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Scatterplot of our literature search (Table 4), with weighted markers based on size of the studies. The markers labeled with “present study” are the elderly patients from our study. The thick bordered markers are studies published previously by us


Forty-five patients (consisting of 32 women and 13 men) with a humeral or femoral nonunion and aged 75 years or older were identified (Table 1). Median age at time of the index surgery was 79 years (range 75–96). Median age at time of injury was 78 years (range 72–94). Mechanism of injury included a fall in 42 patients (93.3%) and a motor vehicle accident in three (6.7%). In one patient (2.2%), the fracture was open (Gustilo Type 3A). Twenty-nine patients (64.4%) had at least one major medical co-morbidity and there were 13 smokers (28.9%). Median ASA-score was 2 (range 1–3). There were 16 humeral nonunions (35.6%) and 29 femoral nonunions (64.4%). Almost half of the 29 femur nonunions were periprosthetic (48.3%). None of the prostheses evidenced loosening. The NUSS had a median score of 32 (range 17–48). Fourteen (31.1%) of nonunions were atrophic, twenty-three (51.1%) were oligotrophic and eight (17.8%) were hypertrophic. All nonunions were extra-articular. After initial injury, 36 patients (80%) underwent ORIF, whereas 9 (20%) were managed non-operatively. Fifteen patients (33.3%) had undergone one or more revisions before the index operation (median 1, range 1–4). Median follow-up was 46.4 months (range 12–143). The index surgery was performed at a median of 12 months after initial injury (range 4–127). When plating was selected for femur nonunion surgery, a 95° blade plates was used in 53.6% (15/28) of patients (Johnson & Johnson/DePuy Synthes, West Chester, PA). Other cases were treated with anatomic variable angle locking plates (VA-LCP; Johnson & Johnson/DePuy Synthes), or 4.5 mm locking plates (Johnson & Johnson/DePuy Synthes). Double plating (parallel or orthogonal) was often employed. In two femoral shaft nonunions, an intramedullary device was used. Bone graft was frequently added (91.1%). Bone graft type varied between surgeons and changed over time. In seven patients (15.6%), only ICBG was added. In 13 patients (28.9%), DBM was used. In 14 patients (31.1%), a combination of ICBG and DBM was used. In 4 cases (8.9%), an intramedullary fibula allograft (FA) was used to augment bone stock. In 6 patients (13.3%), BMP-2 was added. Two representative cases are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A 95-year-old female fell and sustained a midshaft humerus fracture which was treated with a Sarmiento brace at a local hospital. She was referred at five months for a second opinion and presented with pain, a flail arm and radiographic imaging demonstrating lack of fracture callus (A, B). Open reduction and internal fixation was performed with debridement of the nonunion site, removal of bone edges along the nonunion site, and intrameduallary placement of fibular allograft (C). This was followed by compression of the construct around the allograft with placement of an anterior 3.5 mm locking compression pelvic reconstruction plate anterolaterally and a long Philos plate laterally including screws through all 4 cortices through the allograft (D, E). During fluoroscopy at the end of surgical procedure the arm was externally rotated for a final image, which unfortunately led to an iatrogenic fracture of the metaphyseal distal humerus which was then fixated with a second contoured 3.5 mm pelvic recon locking compression pelvic reconstruction plate (F). She returned for routine follow-up and at 4 months radiographic and clinical findings demonstrated a healed humeral nonunion and fracture (G, H); and at most recent contact she is doing well, 99 years of age and has a pain-free arm

Fig. 3
figure 3

An 85-year-old male fell approximately 8.5 years following a left-sided total knee arthroplasty (and was also 9 years status-post left-sided hip fracture surgery). He sustained a supracondylar periprosthetic distal femur fracture and was surgically treated at a local hospital with a distal femur locking compression plate (LCP). He developed a nonunion and subsequently was treated with a bone stimulator. He presented to our institution 14 months following surgery. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral imaging revealed a distal femur nonunion in varus deformity with posterior translation a flexion deformity (A, B). CT scan imaging further demonstrated the nonunion morphology (C). Revision open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was performed with LCP and screw removal, debridement of the nonunion site, (five) cultures taken, correction of deformity with placement of a 950 blade plate and screws, demineralized bone matrix and bone morphogenic protein-2 (D). He returned for routine follow-up and healed 10 months following ORIF. Most recent follow-up AP and lateral radiographs at 20 months (E, F) revealed a healed nonunion in acceptable alignment and with maintenance of fixation and resumed his activities of daily living


After the index surgery, 39 patients (86.7%) achieved osseous union at median time of 6 months (range 2–37); (Tables 2 and 3). Median time to union was longer in the humerus (6 months) than the femur (5 months). This may be explained by the characteristics of the humerus nonunion cohort, classified as either atrophic (56%) or oligotrophic (44%), as compared to the femoral nonunion group where 28% represented a hypertrophic nonunion.

Table 2 All patient data
Table 3 Patient outcome data

Complications and additional surgery

Six patients (13.3%) required revision surgery for persistent nonunion (Tables 2 and 3). In five (all femoral), a single revision was performed; in one (humerus shaft) a planned two-stage revision was completed. Revision surgeries took place at a median of 6 months (range 2–13) after the index surgery. The nonunion in these 6 patients ultimately healed at a median of 10.5 months (range 4–42) after the index nonunion surgery. Median follow-up after the index and revision surgery was 41 months (range 12–137) and 38 months (range 13–143), respectively. One patient developed a post-operative radial nerve palsy, which fully recovered. One patient (95-year-old female) sustained an intra-operative distal humerus fracture below the plates used for fixation of the diaphyseal humerus nonunion. The fixation was modified to include a second plate. She healed uneventfully (Fig. 2). Three patients (6.7%) requested hardware removal. One patient (2.2%) required a total hip arthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture after the distal femoral periprosthetic nonunion healed. There was one infection (2.2%) after the index procedure, which was treated with debridement, antibiotics, and placement of calcium-sulfate pellets (OSTEOSET, Wright Medical Technology Inc. Arlington, TN, USA). The infection cleared and the nonunion healed after the second stage of the revision. Four patients (8.9%) had “surprise positive cultures”. The isolated bacteria (Cutibacterium acnes and Coagulase-negative staphylococci) were treated with culture-specific antibiotics. Three of these healed without additional surgery. One patient with a proximal femoral nonunion (Coagulase-negative staphylococci detected at index procedure), required revision ORIF. She healed 5 months later.

Literature comparison with our results

We compared our current results with literature on younger femur and humerus nonunion groups (Table 4) [20, 23, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. This table provides a comparative framework (Fig. 1). We ran a multi-variate regression analysis of Table 4 (correcting for sample size) to predict time to union based on average age and location. Data from studies published previously by us were excluded from the analyses to avoid risk for bias [23, 38, 43, 44, 53, 54, 57]. Studies of patients with a femur nonunion, revealed a longer mean healing time of 3 months (3.15 95% CI 1.5 – 4.8, p < 0.01) when compared with a humerus nonunion. No change occurred after adjustment for age (3.28 95% CI 1.8 – 4.7). Finally, we performed a sensitivity analysis, where we artificially assumed all patients had the maximum union time reported within each study. This did not change the findings (3.5 95% CI 1.6 – 5.4). Mean ages differed between studies. No statistical difference was identified in time to union in studies with older patients (0.07 month/per year increase in mean age (0.072 95% CI -0.002 – 0.146, p = 0.058)). This was also noted after adjustment for location (0.08 95% CI 0.025 – 0.135, p = 0.005). The sensitivity analyses, which assumed all patients with a nonunion reported maximum time to union, resulted in similar outcomes (0.08 95% CI 0.014 – 0.144, p = 0.018).

Table 4 Literature search showing union time (average, months) and age (average, years) based on nonunion location


In most patients, a nonunion is a disabling condition resulting in pain, reduced activity, and inability to return to pre-injury functional status [6]. The goal of nonunion surgery is to achieve a pain-free healed bone with the highest functional recovery.

Many studies have reported on techniques and complications following nonunion treatment [20, 23, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. To date, few have reported on nonunion treatment specifically in older patients [26, 64, 65]. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have restricted their findings to nonunion patients aged over 74 years.

In general, the spatiotemporal sequence of fracture healing is similar in elderly and younger populations, but the progression is protracted [66]. The cause of this is multifactorial. The expression of bone producing cells and regulation of the surrounding environment change with aging. Osteo-anabolic effects of the Wnt/BMP pathway are decreased, lowering differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) into osteoblasts [67, 68]. Further, the functional abilities of not only MSC but also those of macrophages (important for bone healing) are impaired [5, 12]. Conversely, the pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-a and Il-6 lead to increased osteoclastogenesis and increased bone resorption [67, 68].

The surrounding supportive tissue is affected by aging as well. Fracture healing requires vascularity; expression of angiogenic factors HIF-1A and VEGF has been shown to differ between young versus old animals [69]. Further, the endothelial precursor cells (EPC) required for new blood vessel formation are compromised [68]. Additionally in females specifically, the postmenopausal estrogen deficiency negatively affects bone healing response [70]. It is well accepted that density of bone decreases with age, but recent studies showed osteoporosis and decreased bone density are not risk factors for nonunion when matched for age and sex [71, 72]. These findings are confirmed in a large retrospective nonunion study [7]. The cause of nonunion in patients with osteoporosis is likely multifactorial and includes age-related changes in bones as well as challenges in achieving stable internal fixation [73].

The exact incidence of nonunion in older patients is disputed, but given the macro trend of increased aging, they will continue to occur. An examination of > 47,000 Medicare patients aged > 75 years showed a lower rate of nonunion compared to those < 70 [19]. Another study by Mills et al. showed not only that the total number of nonunion in this age category of patients is lower than previously thought, but also that the in the 75–85 year age bracket was 1.2% versus 3% in the younger group (25–44 years) [74].

Concerns in the very elderly include poor bone stock and co-morbidities jeopardizing surgical outcomes. Fortunately, our results and those of others demonstrate good and reproducible outcomes of operative treatment for elderly nonunion patients [25].

Similar to our younger nonunion patients, we utilized a protocol of debridement, reduction, stable fixation, bone grafting, and early motion [23, 38, 43, 44, 51, 53, 54, 56].

Few clinical reports focus on nonunion in seniors. Zura et al. performed a prospective cohort study of 2.5 million United States Medicare patients. Of these, 47,437 had a fracture or nonunion. Patients with a fracture but without a nonunion were older (75 years) versus those with a nonunion (69.2 years) [19]. Taormina et al. also published a nonunion study, but reported on a younger nonunion population than ours (64 years or older) [64]. In their work, which focused on nonunions of forearm, femur, humerus, clavicle, tibia, foot and ankle, they found patients age was not associated with achieving union and, importantly, that advanced age was not associated with worse outcomes.

Finally, Tanner et al. reported a matched pair analysis on outcome of lower limb nonunion treatment in patients younger or older than 60 years [26, 65]. Treatment was according to the diamond concept. Advanced age did not negatively influence outcome of nonunion surgery [65].

This study has limitations. Although these patients are a prospectively documented cohort in our orthopedic trauma database, pre-operative or post-operative patient-based scores were unavailable. Therefore, clinical improvement after operative treatment could not be assessed. However, osseous union is a logical endpoint after nonunion treatment and it is well known that clinical and radiological outcome correlate regardless of patient age [65]. Additionally, since all three orthopedic surgeons are experienced nonunion surgeons, the results may not be easily reproducible in a general orthopedic setting.

Also, a large group of 30 patients (14 humeral nonunions and 16 femoral nonunions) were excluded because they had shorter than 12 months follow-up due to large traveling distance, concomitant disease, or death. This may have led to selection bias. We included the Weber and Çech classification in this series as it is a part of the NUSS scoring system and many surgeons still refer to it in practice. In reality, we feel the Weber and Çech system likely has little applicability to modern nonunion series as most patients (80% in this series) have already undergone ORIF and are highly unlikely to show the classic historical patterns of atrophic and hypertrophic nonunions seen when many long bone fractures were treated nonoperatively. We have done our best to classify all of the patients into one of the 3 groups, however, nonunions after ORIF usually display some level of callus formation on plain film and CT-scans, and the difference amongst hyper, oligo, and atrophic is quite subjective.

Furthermore, use of bone grafting was not standardized and amount of graft in relation to defect size was unknown. Comparing contributions of BMP versus DBM versus allograft and/or autologous bone graft was not part of the study. Autologous bone graft continues to be the gold standard for bone grafting [75]. Lastly, the reviewed literature did not have a clear-cut definition for nonunion so comparing our results with existing studies was difficult.

The series has several notable strengths. All patients were treated using a standardized surgical protocol consisting of debridement, reduction, and stable fixation., inclusion of the NUSS, radiographic evaluation by a musculoskeletal radiologist, and > 12 months follow-up. Another benefit of the study is inclusion of the NUSS.

Rather than reporting a mixed cohort of nonunion locations, we limited our study to the two most frequent occurring nonunion (humerus and femur) in the elderly. While others reported on nonunion in the elderly, their minimum inclusion age was much lower than ours [26, 64, 65]. We believe our group represents a different age bracket. Lastly, it represents two geographically diverse groups with very different health care systems (European and American respectively) showing equal outcomes. This suggests that these results are reproducible in different health care systems.

As we look to the future, potential treatment opportunities to accelerate fracture and nonunion healing may be different for the elderly as the native MSC and endothelial precursor cells needed for new blood vessel formation are compromised in number and/or function. Further options may involve bone anabolic pharmaceuticals (parathormone, growth factors such as BMP), reduction of senescent progenitor cells, or decreasing the inflamm-aging state in the elderly with a low-grade, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). [13, 68] Despite enormous progress and promising results of using these adjuncts in animal studies, clinical success has been lacking. This should be kept in mind when using these adjuncts, as this is a vulnerable group of patients that attracts a highly competitive bone regeneration industry that is often based on unsupported claims of success [24].


Following a standardized protocol of aggressive debridement, anatomic alignment, stable fixation with compression, liberal use of bone grafting, and early motion was found to reliably achieve bony union in the elderly nonunion patient.

Given these results, we recommend nonunion surgery in the geriatric patient population after thorough risk assessment and preoperative medical and surgical optimization is achieved. Advanced patient age should not be a contra-indication for nonunion surgery.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Mesenchymal stem cells


open reduction and internal fixation


Non-Union Scoring System


iliac crest bone graft


demineralized bone matrix


variable angle locking plates


fibula allograft


mesenchymal stem cells


endothelial precursor cells


non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs


  1. Salhotra A, Shah HN, Levi B, Longaker MT. Mechanisms of bone development and repair. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21(11):696–711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hellwinkel JE, Miclau T 3rd, Provencher MT, Bahney CS, Working ZM. The Life of a Fracture: Biologic Progression, Healing Gone Awry, and Evaluation of Union. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(8):e1900221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferguson C, Alpern E, Miclau T, Helms JA. Does adult fracture repair recapitulate embryonic skeletal formation? Mech Dev. 1999;87(1–2):57–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Praemer A, Furner S, Rice DP. Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States. 1st ed. Park Ridge, Illinois. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1992.

  5. Marsh D. Concepts of fracture union, delayed union, and nonunion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S22–30.

  6. Brinker MR, O’Connor DP. The biological basis for nonunions. JBJS Rev. 2016;4(6):e3.

  7. Foulke BA, Kendal AR, Murray DW, Pandit H. Fracture healing in the elderly: A review. Maturitas. 2016;92:49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gruber R, Koch H, Doll BA, Tegtmeier F, Einhorn TA, Hollinger JO. Fracture healing in the elderly patient. Exp Gerontol. 2006;41(11):1080–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Meinberg EG, Clark D, Miclau KR, Marcucio R, Miclau T. Fracture repair in the elderly: Clinical and experimental considerations. Injury. 2019;50 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):62–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Strube P, Sentuerk U, Riha T, Kaspar K, Mueller M, Kasper G, Matziolis G, Duda GN, Perka C. Influence of age and mechanical stability on bone defect healing: age reverses mechanical effects. Bone. 2008;42(4):758–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Quarto R, Thomas D, Liang CT. Bone progenitor cell deficits and the age-associated decline in bone repair capacity. Calcif Tissue Int. 1995;56(2):123–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibon E, Lu L, Goodman SB. Aging, inflammation, stem cells, and bone healing. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016;7:44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Josephson AM, Bradaschia-Correa V, Lee S, Leclerc K, Patel KS, Muinos Lopez E, Litwa HP, Neibart SS, Kadiyala M, Wong MZ, et al. Age-related inflammation triggers skeletal stem/progenitor cell dysfunction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116(14):6995–7004.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nishida S, Endo N, Yamagiwa H, Tanizawa T, Takahashi HE. Number of osteoprogenitor cells in human bone marrow markedly decreases after skeletal maturation. J Bone Miner Metab. 1999;17(3):171–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Verma S, Rajaratnam JH, Denton J, Hoyland JA, Byers RJ. Adipocytic proportion of bone marrow is inversely related to bone formation in osteoporosis. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(9):693–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tzioupis C, Panteliadis P, Gamie Z, Tsiridis E. Revision of a nonunited subtrochanteric femoral fracture around a failed intramedullary nail with the use of RIA products, BMP-7 and hydroxyapatite: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2011;5:87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zura R, Xiong Z, Einhorn T, Watson JT, Ostrum RF, Prayson MJ, Della Rocca GJ, Mehta S, McKinley T, Wang Z, et al. Epidemiology of Fracture Nonunion in 18 Human Bones. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(11):e162775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Global Forum: Fractures in the Elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(9):e36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zura R, Braid-Forbes MJ, Jeray K, Mehta S, Einhorn TA, Watson JT, Della Rocca GJ, Forbes K, Steen RG. Bone fracture nonunion rate decreases with increasing age: A prospective inception cohort study. Bone. 2017;95:26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Monroy A, Urruela A, Singh P, Tornetta P 3rd, Egol KA. Distal femur nonunion patients can expect good outcomes. J Knee Surg. 2014;27(1):83–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Nonunions of the proximal humerus: their prevalence and functional outcome. J Trauma. 2008;64(6):1517–21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cadet ER, Yin B, Schulz B, Ahmad CS, Rosenwasser MP. Proximal humerus and humeral shaft nonunions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(9):538–47.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Donders JCE, Lorich DG, Helfet DL, Kloen P. Surgical Technique: Treatment of Distal Humerus Nonunions. Hss J. 2017;13(3):282–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hadjiargyrou M, O’Keefe RJ. The convergence of fracture repair and stem cells: interplay of genes, aging, environmental factors and disease. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(11):2307–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lotzien S, Rosteius T, Rausch V, Schildhauer TA, Geßmann J. Trochanteric femoral nonunion in patients aged over 60 years treated with dynamic condylar screw. Injury. 2020;51(2):389–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanner MC, Hagelskamp S, Vlachopoulos W, Miska M, Findeisen S, Grimm A, Schmidmaier G, Haubruck P. Non-Union Treatment Based on the “Diamond Concept” Is a Clinically Effective and Safe Treatment Option in Older Adults. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;15:1221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weber BG, Čech O. Pseudarthrosis: Pathophysiology, Biomechanics, Therapy, Results. Grune & Stratton Publishing; 1976.

  29. Calori GM, Colombo M, Mazza EL, Mazzola S, Malagoli E, Marelli N, Corradi A. Validation of the Non-Union Scoring System in 300 long bone non-unions. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 6):S93-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984;24(8):742–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Dripps RD, Lamont A, Eckenhoff JE. The Role of Anesthesia in Surgical Mortality. JAMA. 1961;178(3):261–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wellenberg RHH, Donders JCE, Kloen P, Beenen LFM, Kleipool RP, Maas M, Streekstra GJ. Exploring metal artifact reduction using dual-energy CT with pre-metal and post-metal implant cadaver comparison: are implant specific protocols needed? Skeletal Radiol. 2018;47(6):839–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ali AM, Villafuerte J, Hashmi M, Saleh M. Judet’s quadricepsplasty, surgical technique, and results in limb reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415:214–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gardner MJ, Griffith MH, Demetrakopoulos D, Brophy RH, Grose A, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Hybrid locked plating of osteoporotic fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(9):1962–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ilyas I, Younge DA. Locked intramedullary nailing for difficult nonunions of the humeral diaphysis. Int Orthop. 2003;27(5):278–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. McKee MD, Miranda MA, Riemer BL, Blasier RB, Redmond BJ, Sims SH, Waddell JP, Jupiter JB. Management of humeral nonunion after the failure of locking intramedullary nails. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(7):492–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ali F, Saleh M. Treatment of distal femoral nonunions by external fixation with simultaneous length and alignment correction. Injury. 2002;33(2):127–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Amorosa LF, Jayaram PR, Wellman DS, Lorich DG, Helfet DL. The use of the 95-degree-angled blade plate in femoral nonunion surgery. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol: orthopedie traumatology. 2014;24(6):953–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Aslantürk O, Akman YE, Öztürk H, Eltayeb MEM, Küçükkaya M, Hamzaoğlu A. “Sandwich technique” with dual strut allograft in surgical treatment of femoral nonunion. Injury. 2020;51(4):1057–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Badman BL, Mighell M, Kalandiak SP, Prasarn M. Proximal humeral nonunions treated with fixed-angle locked plating and an intramedullary strut allograft. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(3):173–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Benazzo F, Mosconi M, Bove F, Quattrini F. Treatment of femoral diaphyseal non-unions: our experience. Injury. 2010;41(11):1156–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Birch CE, Blankstein M, Chlebeck JD, Bartlett Rd CS. Orthogonal plating of Vancouver B1 and C-type periprosthetic femur fracture nonunions. Hip Int. 2017;27(6):578–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. de Vries JS, Kloen P, Borens O, Marti RK, Helfet DL. Treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions. Injury. 2006;37(2):203–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gardner MJ, Toro-Arbelaez JB, Harrison M, Hierholzer C, Lorich DG, Helfet DL. Open reduction and internal fixation of distal femoral nonunions: long-term functional outcomes following a treatment protocol. J Trauma. 2008;64(2):434–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kanakeshwar RB, Jayaramaraju D, Agraharam D, Rajasekaran S. Management of resistant distal femur non-unions with allograft strut and autografts combined with osteosynthesis in a series of 22 patients. Injury. 2017;48(Suppl 2):S14-s17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin CL, Fang CK, Chiu FY, Chen CM, Chen TH. Revision with dynamic compression plate and cancellous bone graft for aseptic nonunion after surgical treatment of humeral shaft fracture. J Trauma. 2009;67(6):1393–6.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lotzien S, Rausch V, Schildhauer TA, Gessmann J. Revision of subtrochanteric femoral nonunions after intramedullary nailing with dynamic condylar screw. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lu J, Guo SC, Wang QY, Sheng JG, Tao SC. J-bone graft with double locking plate: a symphony of mechanics and biology for atrophic distal femoral non-union with bone defect. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Maimaitiyiming A, Amat A, Rehei A, Tusongjiang M, Li C. Treatment of the femoral shaft nonunion with double plate fixation and bone grafting: A case series of 14 patients. Injury. 2015;46(6):1102–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mardani-Kivi M, Karimi Mobarakeh M, Keyhani S, Azari Z. Double-plate fixation together with bridging bone grafting in nonunion of femoral supracondylar, subtrochanteric, and shaft fractures is an effective technique. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104(2):215–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Marti RK, Verheyen CC, Besselaar PP. Humeral shaft nonunion: evaluation of uniform surgical repair in fifty-one patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16(2):108–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Peng Y, Ji X, Zhang L, Tang P. Double locking plate fixation for femoral shaft nonunion. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26(5):501–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Prasarn ML, Achor T, Paul O, Lorich DG, Helfet DL. Management of nonunions of the proximal humeral diaphysis. Injury. 2010;41(12):1244–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Prins J, Donders JCE, Helfet DL, Wellman DS, Klinger CE, Redko M, Kloen P. Periprosthetic femoral nonunions treated with internal fixation and bone grafting. Injury. 2018;49(12):2295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rajasekaran RB, Jayaramaraju D, Palanisami DR, Agraharam D, Perumal R, Kamal A, Rajasekaran S. A surgical algorithm for the management of recalcitrant distal femur nonunions based on distal femoral bone stock, fracture alignment, medial void, and stability of fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(8):1057–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ring D, McKee MD, Perey BH, Jupiter JB. The use of a blade plate and autogenous cancellous bone graft in the treatment of ununited fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(6):501–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Rollick NC, Bear J, Diamond O, Wellman DS, Helfet DL. Orthogonal Plating With a 95-Degree Blade Plate for Salvage of Unsuccessful Cephalomedullary Nailing of Atypic Femur Fractures: A Technical Trick. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(6):e246–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rollo G, Prkić A, Pichierri P, Eygendaal D, Bisaccia M, Filipponi M, Giaracuni M, Hitov P, Tanovski K, Meccariello L. Plate-and-bone-strut fixation of distal third humeral shaft aseptic non-unions: A consecutive case series. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(Suppl 1):S127-s132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rollo G, Rotini R, Pichierri P, Giaracuni M, Stasi A, Macchiarola L, Bisaccia M, Meccariello L. Grafting and fixation of proximal humeral aseptic non union: a prospective case series. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2017;14(3):298–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Singh AK, Arun GR, Narsaria N, Srivastava A. Treatment of non-union of humerus diaphyseal fractures: a prospective study comparing interlocking nail and locking compression plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(7):947–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Uliana CS, Bidolegui F, Kojima K, Giordano V. Augmentation plating leaving the nail in situ is an excellent option for treating femoral shaft nonunion after IM nailing: a multicentre study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;47(6):1895–901.

  62. Walch G, Badet R, Nové-Josserand L, Levigne C. Nonunions of the surgical neck of the humerus: surgical treatment with an intramedullary bone peg, internal fixation, and cancellous bone grafting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):161–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Xing W, Pan Z, Sun L, Sun L, Zhang C, Zhang Z, Feng W, Liu C. Sliding bone graft combined with double locking plate fixation for the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion. J Int Med Res. 2019;47(5):2034–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Taormina DP, Shulman BS, Karia R, Spitzer AB, Konda SR, Egol KA. Older age does not affect healing time and functional outcomes after fracture nonunion surgery. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2014;5(3):116–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tanner M, Vlachopoulos W, Findeisen S, et al. Does age influence the outcome of lower limb non-union treatment? A matched pair analysis. J Clin Med. 2019;8(9):1276.

  66. Meyer RA Jr, Meyer MH, Tenholder M, Wondracek S, Wasserman R, Garges P. Gene expression in older rats with delayed union of femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(7):1243–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Beckmann R, Tohidnezhad M, Lichte P, Wruck CJ, Jahr H, Pape HC, Pufe T. New from old : relevant factors for fracture healing in aging bone. Orthopade. 2014;43(4):298–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Wagner DR, Karnik S, Gunderson ZJ, Nielsen JJ, Fennimore A, Promer HJ, Lowery JW, Loghmani MT, Low PS, McKinley TO, et al. Dysfunctional stem and progenitor cells impair fracture healing with age. World J Stem Cells. 2019;11(6):281–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Clark D, Nakamura M, Miclau T, Marcucio R. Effects of Aging on Fracture Healing. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2017;15(6):601–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Cheung WH, Miclau T, Chow SK, Yang FF, Alt V. Fracture healing in osteoporotic bone. Injury. 2016;47(Suppl 2):S21-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Gorter EA, Gerretsen BM, Krijnen P, Appelman-Dijkstra NM, Schipper IB. Does osteoporosis affect the healing of subcapital humerus and distal radius fractures? J Orthop. 2020;22:237–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. van Wunnik BP, Weijers PH, van Helden SH, Brink PR, Poeze M. Osteoporosis is not a risk factor for the development of nonunion: A cohort nested case-control study. Injury. 2011;42(12):1491–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hobby B, Lee MA. Managing atrophic nonunion in the geriatric population: incidence, distribution, and causes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44(2):251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mills LA, Aitken SA, Simpson A. The risk of non-union per fracture: current myths and revised figures from a population of over 4 million adults. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(4):434–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sen MK, Miclau T. Autologous iliac crest bone graft: should it still be the gold standard for treating nonunions? Injury. 2007;38(Suppl 1):S75-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


JCED received research stipends from the Marti-Keunig-Eckhardt Foundation and the Herman Heinsbroek Foundation. No other support was received from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organization that might have an interest in the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



CHVT (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision and Validation; Writing: original draft; review and editing).

JCED (Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing: original draft; review and editing).

CEK (Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing: original draft; review and editing).

DSW (Data curation; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing: original draft; review and editing).

DLH (Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing: original draft; review and editing).

PK (Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing: original draft; review and editing).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig E. Klinger.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Intuitional Review Board (IRB; Hospital for Special Surgery) and Medical Ethical Testing Commission (METC; Amsterdam University Medical Center) approval was obtained for this retrospective research study including a waiver of informed consent at both institutions. All the methods were carried out in accordance to relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent to Publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

CHVT, JCED, CEK, DSW, DLH, and PK declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Trikt, C.H., Donders, J.C.E., Klinger, C.E. et al. Operative treatment of nonunions in the elderly: Clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients at minimum 75 years of age. BMC Geriatr 22, 985 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Elderly
  • Operative management
  • Geriatric trauma
  • Nonunions
  • Non-union scoring system
  • Humerus
  • Femur
  • Femur periprosthetic