Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

Our clinical results in the management of proximal humeral fractures

Sayfa
63–68
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Young patients had better functional results than older patients.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiological and functional results of patients treated with different methodsin our clinic for proximal humerus fracture.Material and Methods: A total of 106 patients with a diagnosis of proximal humerus fracture, who were scheduled for treatment,received management and followed up periodically after discharge were included.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Functional results were evaluated according to Constant shoulder scoreat the last visit.Results: The mean age of the patients was 53.6 years (17-94).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Young patients had better functional results than older patients.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiological and functional results of patients treated with different methodsin our clinic for proximal humerus fracture.Material and Methods: A total of 106 patients with a diagnosis of proximal humerus fracture, who were scheduled for treatment,received management and followed up periodically after discharge were included. Patient files, X-RAY radiographs in the PACSsystem, surgical notes and outpatient epicrisis were used. Functional results were evaluated according to Constant shoulder scoreat the last visit.Results: The mean age of the patients was 53.6 years (17-94). The mean follow-up period was 11.3 months (6-40 months). 55 (51.9%)had Type II, 35 (33%) had Type III and 16 (15.1%) had Type IV proximal end humeral fractures. As a result of the evaluation performedat the last follow-up of the patients, Constant-Murley’s total score was 64.50 out of 100 (31-88). Score distribution according to Neerclassification of patients; A Constant-Murley score median with a Neer Type II fracture was 74.00 (36-88), a Constant-Murley Score medianwith a Neer Type III fracture was 61.00 (31-78), and a Constant-Murley score median with a Neer Type IV fracture was 44.50 (33-70).Conclusion: When the fracture type and functional outcome of the patients were compared, functional outcome decreased as thefracture type increased. Young patients had better functional results than older patients.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

EMELİ, A., KEY, S., DEMİR, Ş., GÜRGER, M., SEVİMLİ, R., ÖNCE, G. (2022). Our clinical results in the management of proximal humeral fractures. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 63–68. https://ajindex.com/articles/446025

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Bell JE, Leung BC, Spratt KF, et al. Trends and variation in incidence, surgical treatment, and repeat surgery of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:121-31
  2. Lee SH, Dargent-Molina P, Breart G. Risk factors for fractures of the proximal humerus: results from the EPIDOS prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17:817-25
  3. Aaron D, Shatsky J, Paredes JC, et al. Proximal humeral fractures: internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:2280-8
  4. Demirhan M, Atalar AC. Humerus Üst Uç Kırıklarına Yaklaşım. Türk Ortopedi Ve Travmatoloji Birliği Derneği dergisi (TOTBİD). 2003;2:3-4
  5. Maier D, Jaeger M, Izadpanah K, et al. Proximal humeral fracture treatment in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:251
  6. Lill H, Bewer A, Korner J, et al. Zentralbl Conservative treatment of dislocated proximal humeral fractures Chir 2001;126:205-10
  7. Herscovici D Jr, Saunders DT, Johnson MP, et al. Percutaneous fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;375:97-104
  8. Cai P, Yang Y, Xu Z, et al. Anatomic locking plates for complex proximal humeral fractures: anatomic neck fractures versus surgical neck fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019;28:476-82
  9. Murray IR, Amin AK, White TO, et al. Proximal humeral fractures: current concepts in classification, treatment and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93:1-11
  10. Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Nonunions of the proximal humerus: their prevalence and functional outcome. J Trauma 2008;64:1517-21
  11. Galatz LM, Iannotti JP. Management of surgical neck nonunions. Orthop Clin North Am 2000;31:51-61
  12. Egol KA, Ong CC, Walsh M, et al. Early Complications in Proximal Humerus Fractures (OTA Types 11) Treated With Locked Plates, J Orthop Trauma 2008;22:159-64
  13. Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, et al The importance of medial support in lockedplating of proximal humerus fractures. Orthop Trauma 2007;21:185-91
  14. Lill H, Hepp P, Korner J, et al. Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003;123:74-81
  15. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:1093-110
  16. Papadopoulos P, Karataglis D, Stavridis SI, Petsatodis G, Christodoulou A. Mid-term results of internal fixation of proximal humeral fra