Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2019 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 1

The elderly have similar outcomes compared to younger patients after ORIF with locking plate for comminuted proximal humerus fracture

Pages
1–5
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, we suggested to use structural bone graft for comminuted medial cortex fracture with multiple fragments or bony defect more than 2 cm.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of elder and younger patients with comminuted proximal humerus fracture treated with osteosynthesis with locking plate.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 70 patients (30 males and 40 females; mean age 65.4 years) operated on for Neer 3or 4-part proximal humeral fractures between 2010 and 2016 and followed for at least one-year were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, we suggested to use structural bone graft for comminuted medial cortex fracture with multiple fragments or bony defect more than 2 cm.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of elder and younger patients with comminuted proximal humerus fracture treated with osteosynthesis with locking plate. Methods: A total of 70 patients (30 males and 40 females; mean age 65.4 years) operated on for Neer 3or 4-part proximal humeral fractures between 2010 and 2016 and followed for at least one-year were included in the study. The reduction was achieved through intraosseous window to minimize soft tissue strippingin all patients and structuralallograft at metaphysealdiaphyseal junctionwas used aggressively to resist varus force. Group 1 consisted of 32 patients aged 70 or older (14 males and 18 females; mean age: 77.8 ± 5.1), while Group 2 consisted of 38 patients younger than 70 (16 males and 22 females; mean age: 58.2 ± 9.3). The groups were compared for their clinical and radiological outcomes. Results: Therewas no significant difference in clinical outcomes by Oxford score (54.8 ± 2.7 vs 56.6 ± 3.4, p ¼ 0.13) and ASES score (89.7 ± 5.7 vs 90.8 ± 8.2, p ¼ 0.68). Two groups had similar radiological outcomes regarding neck shaft angle, greater tip height and offset. However, group 2 had better final shoulder forward elevation (162.6 ± 8.7 vs 135.4 ± 14.7ß, p < 0.05) and shorter duration to achieve maximal range of motion (4.37 ± 2.37 vs 8.14 ± 3.25 months, p < 0.05) than group 1. Two groups had similar complication rates (9.4% vs 7.9%). All the complications were related to greater tuberosity including mal-reduction and avulsion. Conclusion: With the prerequisite of good alignment with robust medial cortical support and untouched soft tissue over medial metaphysis area via intra-osseous reduction, comminution of proximal humeral fracture can achieve satisfactory result and low complication rate by osteosynthesis with locking plate system, regardless of age. In addition, we suggested to use structural bone graft for comminuted medial cortex fracture with multiple fragments or bony defect more than 2 cm.

🔖

Cite This Article

SU, Y., YANG, T., CHANG, M. (2019). The elderly have similar outcomes compared to younger patients after ORIF with locking plate for comminuted proximal humerus fracture. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 1, 1–5. https://ajindex.com/articles/353493

References (12)

  1. Khatib O, Onyekwelu I, Zuckerman JD. The incidence of proximal humeral fractures in New York State from 1990 through 2010 with an emphasis on operative management in patients aged 65 years or older. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(9):1356-1362.
  2. Erasmo R, Guerra G, Guerra L. Fractures and fracture-dislocations of the proximal humerus: a retrospective analysis of 82 cases treated with the Philos((R)) locking plate. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 6):S43-S48. Sudkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. The J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1320-1328.
  3. Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE. Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(7):1215-1223.
  4. Chudik SC, Weinhold P, Dahners LE. Fixed-angle plate fixation in simulated fractures of the proximal humerus: a biomechanical study of a new device. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(6):578-588.
  5. Fankhauser F, Boldin C, Schippinger G, Haunschmid C, Szyszkowitz R. A new locking plate for unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;430:176-181.
  6. Rouleau DM, Laflamme GY, Berry GK, Harvey EJ, Delisle J, Girard J. Proximal humerus fractures treated by percutaneous locking plate internal fixation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res: OTSR. 2009;95(1):56-62.
  7. Owsley KC, Gorczyca JT. Fracture displacement and screw cutout after open reduction and locked plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(2):233-240.
  8. Sproul RC, Iyengar JJ, Devcic Z, Feeley BT. A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2011;42(4):408-413.
  9. Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD. Surgical treatment of three and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7): 1689-1697.
  10. Demirhan M, Kilicoglu O, Altinel L, Eralp L, Akalin Y. Prognostic factors in prosthetic replacement for acute proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(3):181e188, 188-189.
  11. Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Leunig M. Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(4):427-433. 13. JungSW,ShimSB,KimHM,LeeJH,LimHS.Factorsthatinfluencereductionlossin proximal humerus fracture surgery. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(6):276-282.
  12. Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J,