Journals / Cerrahi Sanatlar Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

Clinical and radiological results of locking plate surgical treatment in patients over 65 years of age with neer type 3-4 proximal humerus fractures

Pages
35–39
Publication Date
2023-08-08
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)

Considering osteoporosis in three-part and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus of Neer, the results of plate osteosynthesis treatment are not successful in patients with advanced age, additional morbidity and high surgical risk.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Our objective was to evaluate the locking plate osteosynthesis (OS) results in treating three- and four-part humeral fractures in patients older than 65 years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Twenty-eight patients who underwent plate osteosynthesis for proximal humerus fracture between 2017 and 2021 and had at least one year of follow-up were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering osteoporosis in three-part and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus of Neer, the results of plate osteosynthesis treatment are not successful in patients with advanced age, additional morbidity and high surgical risk.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:proximal humerus fractures · osteosynthesis · Neer 3 and 4 fragment fractures

Abstract

Our objective was to evaluate the locking plate osteosynthesis (OS) results in treating three- and four-part humeral fractures in patients older than 65 years. Twenty-eight patients who underwent plate osteosynthesis for proximal humerus fracture between 2017 and 2021 and had at least one year of follow-up were included in the study. The Constant-Murley shoulder score (0-55 points: poor, 56-70 points: moderate, 71-85 points: good, 86-100 points: very good), shoulder motion in all directions, pain, and performing daily activities of daily living at postoperative follow-up of the shoulder range of motion was also assessed. The mean age of our patients was 75.14 (66-94). The mean follow-up time was 58.8 (18-73) months. One of our patients developed avascular necrosis in the humeral head, and two of our patients underwent partial shoulder arthroplasty when union could not be achieved. Graphic follow-up revealed that the plate caused subacromial compression in 5 patients, that the locking screw loosened in 3 patients, that 1 (3.22%) screw in the humeral head migrated into the joint in 3 patients in the postoperative period, and that the humeral head fused in varus position in 6 patients. In 3 of our patients, the screws that had migrated into the joint were removed. Hemiarthroplasty was performed in one patient with avascular necrosis and two patients with nonunion. The mean Constant-Murley shoulder score was calculated to be 49.74 (23-98). It was considered excellent in 2 (6.45%) patients, good in 2 patients, moderate in 6 patients, and poor in 18 (67.74%) patients. Infections, vascular and nerve damage did not occur in our patients. Considering osteoporosis in three-part and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus of Neer, the results of plate osteosynthesis treatment are not successful in patients with advanced age, additional morbidity and high surgical risk.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYAOKAY, K., KAZİMOGLU, C. (2023). Clinical and radiological results of locking plate surgical treatment in patients over 65 years of age with neer type 3-4 proximal humerus fractures. Cerrahi Sanatlar Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 35–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/957133

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(4):365-371
  2. Passaretti D, Candela V, Sessa P, Gumina S. Epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures: a detailed survey of 711 patients in a metropoli-tan area. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(12):2117-124
  3. Iglesias-Rodríguez S, Domínguez-Prado DM, García-Reza A, Fernández-Fernández D, Pérez-Alfonso E, García-Piñeiro J, et al. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):402
  4. Patel AH, Wilder JH, Ofa SA, Lee OC, Savoie FH, 3rd, O'Brien MJ, et al. Trending a decade of proximal humerus fracture management in ol-der adults. JSES Int. 2022;6(1):137-143
  5. McLean AS, Price N, Graves S, Hatton A, Tay-lor FJ. Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. J Shoulder El-bow Surg. 2019;28(11):2072-2078
  6. Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM. Impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus. The results of non-operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(4):504-508
  7. Thorsness R, English C, Gross J, Tyler W, Volos-hin I, Gorczyca J. Proximal humerus fractures with associated axillary artery injury. J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Nov;28(11):659-663
  8. Koval KJ, Gallagher MA, Marsicano JG, Cuomo F, McShinawy A, Zuckerman JD. Functional outcome after minimally displaced fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(2):203-207
  9. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Ort-hop Relat Res. 1987(214):160-164
  10. Beks RB, Ochen Y, Frima H, Smeeing DPJ, van der Meijden O, Timmers TK, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal hu-meral fractures: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of observational stu-dies and randomized controlled trials. J Shoul-der Elbow Surg. 2018;27(8):1526-1534
  11. Jawa A, Burnikel D. Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Critical Analysis Review. JBJS Rev. 2016;4(1)
  12. Maier D, Jaeger M, Izadpanah K, Strohm PC, Suedkamp NP. Proximal humeral fracture tre-atment in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(3):251-261
  13. Handoll HH, Brorson S. Interventions for trea-ting proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(11):Cd000434
  14. Boileau P, Caligaris-Cordero B, Payeur F, Tinsi L, Argenson C. [Prognostic factors during reha-bilitation after shoulder prostheses for fracture]. Rev Chir Ort