OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the results of plate osteosynthesis using either polyaxial or nonpolyaxially locked screw-plate systems in proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized. SETTING: Level I trauma center. METHODS:Fifty-six patients (older than 60 years) with isolated, displaced three- and four-part fractures were included. Twenty-five patients (median age, 75.5 years) were randomized to a polyaxial locking screw plate (Group 1), whereas 31 patients (median age, 72 years) were treated with a locking screw plate (Group 2). Follow-up evaluations were performed 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Simple Shoulder Test, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and Constant score as well as radiographs. The results and the complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS:Forty-eight patients were available for follow-up (Group 1, 20 of 25; Group 2, 28 of 31). The Simple Shoulder Test, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, and Constant score improved significantly from 3 to 12 months and did not differ between groups. Twelve months after the index procedure, the Simple Shoulder Test score was 8.6 ± 3.2 points in Group 1 and 9.7 ± 1.8 points in Group 2. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 17.8 ± 16.2 in Group 1 and 15.7 ± 11.8 in Group 2. The mean Constant score amounted to 73% ± 17% in Group 1 and 81% ± 13% in Group 2. There were six complications in Group 1 and eight in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both the functional outcomes and the rate of complications after polyaxial locked plate osteosynthesis of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients were comparable to those treated with nonpolyaxial implants. Despite the theoretical advantages of polyaxial locked plating in proximal humerus fractures, this study could not show a verifiable clinical advantage of these plates.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the results of plate osteosynthesis using either polyaxial or nonpolyaxially locked screw-plate systems in proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized. SETTING: Level I trauma center. METHODS: Fifty-six patients (older than 60 years) with isolated, displaced three- and four-part fractures were included. Twenty-five patients (median age, 75.5 years) were randomized to a polyaxial locking screw plate (Group 1), whereas 31 patients (median age, 72 years) were treated with a locking screw plate (Group 2). Follow-up evaluations were performed 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Simple Shoulder Test, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and Constant score as well as radiographs. The results and the complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were available for follow-up (Group 1, 20 of 25; Group 2, 28 of 31). The Simple Shoulder Test, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, and Constant score improved significantly from 3 to 12 months and did not differ between groups. Twelve months after the index procedure, the Simple Shoulder Test score was 8.6 ± 3.2 points in Group 1 and 9.7 ± 1.8 points in Group 2. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 17.8 ± 16.2 in Group 1 and 15.7 ± 11.8 in Group 2. The mean Constant score amounted to 73% ± 17% in Group 1 and 81% ± 13% in Group 2. There were six complications in Group 1 and eight in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both the functional outcomes and the rate of complications after polyaxial locked plate osteosynthesis of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients were comparable to those treated with nonpolyaxial implants. Despite the theoretical advantages of polyaxial locked plating in proximal humerus fractures, this study could not show a verifiable clinical advantage of these plates.
Authors: Antti P Launonen; Vesa Lepola; Tapio Flinkkilä; Minna Laitinen; Mika Paavola; Antti Malmivaara Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Marc Beirer; Moritz Crönlein; Arne J Venjakob; Tim Saier; Marcus Schmitt-Sody; Stefan Huber-Wagner; Peter Biberthaler; Chlodwig Kirchhoff Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 2.175