***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Summary . A comparison was made between 44 humeral fractures treated conservatively with functional bracing ( Group 1 ) and 45 treated by operation with a locking nail ( Group 2 ) . Thirty-eight of the 44 patients in Group 1 ( 86 % ) and 22 of the 45 patients in Group 2 ( 47 % ) regained full movement of the shoulder joint . The functional end results were somewhat better in Group 1 although over 90 % of patients in both groups were able to clasp their fingers behind their necks and to reach up their backs without restriction . Two patients developed a pseudarthrosis in Group 1 , and 2 patients in Group 2 required operative revision due to a haematoma in 1 case and as a result of an infection in the other . There were 6 cases of primary radial nerve damage in both groups , and 6 had to be decompressed operatively . Residual sensory and motor disturbance remained in 2 patients in Group 1 . Both methods are useful for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures . We advocate functional bracing as the method of choice if no contraindications exist . Résumé . 99 fractures de la diaphyse humérale ont été analysées , do nt 44 ont été traitées par brassard et 45 par clou intramédullaire . 86 % du groupe : traitement conservateur et 47 % du groupe : traitement opératoire présentaient un mouvement illimité de l’épaule , t and is que plus de 90 % des deux groupes arrivaient à toucher la nuque ( rotation externe en abduction ) et la sacrum ( rotation interne en adduction ) avec la main du bras blessé . Il y a eut deux pseudarthroses dans le groupe conservateur . Dans le groupe opératoire deux interventions chirurgicales ont été nécessaires en raison d’une infection et d’une hémorragie . Les deux groupes présentaient chacun 6 cas de paralysie primaire du nerf radial avec une décompression chirurgicale consécutive dans 6 cas . Des déficits moteurs et sensitifs persistaient chez deux malades du groupe conservateur . Les deux méthodes sont efficaces pour le traitement des fractures de la diaphyse de l’humérus . En cas d’absence des contre-indications nous recomm and ons le traitement par brassard comme traitement de premier choix This prospect i ve multicenter study conducted by the German section of the AO International analyzes 302 fractures of the humeral shaft , 170 ( 56 % ) of which were operated upon and 132 ( 44 % ) , treated conservatively . Among those operated upon , 3.5 % developed infections and 10 % showed paresis of the radial nerve . In contrast , the only complication in the group treated conservatively was pseudarthrosis , in 1 case . However , further analysis revealed that complications were distributed unequally among the centers and the most complications were reported from only a few hospitals . We were able to contact 173 ( 57 % ) patients for follow-up .  Results of operative and conservative treatment were compared for similar fractures . Both techniques result ed in predominantly good to excellent results . The somewhat inferior results in the group operated upon were explained by the higher percentage of associated local injuries and concomitant injuries to other organs . The results of this study were compared with those of other recent studies , and recommendations were established for the operative and conservative treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft 
    Output:
    
There is no evidence available from r and omised controlled trials to ascertain whether surgical intervention of humeral shaft fractures gives a better or worse outcome than no surgery .