Literature DB >> 21691910

Locked plating of proximal humeral fractures: is function affected by age, time, and fracture patterns?

Clifford B Jones1, Debra L Sietsema, Daniel K Williams.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures improves biomechanical stability. It has expanded the indications of traditional open reduction internal fixation and become increasingly common for treating unstable, displaced proximal humeral fractures. Despite improved stability it is unclear whether these improve function and if so for which patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined patient function after a locked plating technique for the treatment of unstable proximal humeral fractures based on age, time, fracture pattern, and associated injures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 66 patients with 69 proximal humeral fractures treated with a locked proximal humeral plating technique from 2002-2006 using prospectively gathered data. Function was measured using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and SF-36 at 6, 12, and 24 months. Fracture healing was determined radiographically and complication rates were determined from the medical records.
RESULTS: At 2 years, DASH scores were 26.5 and 37.4 for isolated and polytrauma patients, respectively. For age differences, DASH scores were 33.1 and 28.9 for ages younger than 60 and 60 years old or older, respectively. At 2 years, SMFA scores were higher (worse) in older compared with younger patients. Function, but not bother continues to improve in younger patients up to 2 years. More severe fracture patterns performed worse in all SMFA indices at 2 years. Polytrauma patients consistently experienced worse mobility than isolated injury patients at each time interval.
CONCLUSIONS: With locked plating of unstable proximal humeral fractures, older patients function as well as younger patients; improvement continues until 1 year postoperatively, the Neer fracture classification differentiates function, and polytrauma patients perform worse clinically. Long-term functional deficits persist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21691910      PMCID: PMC3210268          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1935-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  50 in total

1.  The American academy of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population.

Authors:  Frank G Hunsaker; Dominic A Cioffi; Peter C Amadio; James G Wright; Beth Caughlin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use.

Authors:  Charles S Neer
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Intrathoracic migration of a humeral orthopedic pin.

Authors:  A A Khan; S U Khan; Z Hossain
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino)       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.888

Review 4.  Management of surgical neck nonunions.

Authors:  L M Galatz; J P Iannotti
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.472

5.  [Treatment of proximal humeral fractures with the PHILOS angular stable plate. Presentation of 225 cases of dislocated fractures].

Authors:  M Kettler; P Biberthaler; V Braunstein; C Zeiler; M Kroetz; W Mutschler
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  [Management of complications after angularly stable locking proximal humerus plate fixation].

Authors:  C Voigt; A Woltmann; A Partenheimer; H Lill
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 0.955

7.  The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus. Epidemiology and outcome in the older patient.

Authors:  C M Court-Brown; A Garg; M M McQueen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-08

8.  Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity.

Authors:  D E Beaton; J N Katz; A H Fossel; J G Wright; V Tarasuk; C Bombardier
Journal:  J Hand Ther       Date:  2001 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.950

Review 9.  Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.

Authors:  J N Gibson; H H Handoll; R Madhok
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2002

10.  Treatment of proximal humeral fractures with Polarus nail fixation.

Authors:  Julie Agel; Clifford B Jones; Anthony G Sanzone; Matthew Camuso; M Bradford Henley
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.019

View more
  9 in total

1.  Letter regarding article by Sun et al.: Locking plates versus intramedullary nails in the management of displaced proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui-Zi Li; Xiang-He Xu; Hua-Ding Lu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Quotation errors related to the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (ProFHER) study.

Authors:  Rahul Bagga; Peter Cay; David Ricketts; Tom Roper; Joideep Phadnis
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-08-17

3.  [Indication for primary fracture prosthesis of the shoulder].

Authors:  C Kirchhoff; P Biberthaler
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Treatment for displaced proximal humerus fractures: comparison of interlocking plate fixation versus minimal invasive techniques.

Authors:  Felix Bachelier; Antonius Pizanis; Julia Schwitalla; Tim Pohlemann; Dieter Kohn; Reiner Wirbel
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-06-01

5.  Open reconstruction of complex proximal metadiaphyseal fragility fractures of the humerus.

Authors:  Isaac B James; Dana J Farrell; Andrew R Evans; Peter A Siska; Ivan S Tarkin
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2014-03

6.  Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population.

Authors:  M W de Graaf; M El Moumni; E Heineman; K W Wendt; I H F Reininga
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Functional and quality of life outcome after non-operatively managed proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Ronnart N Kruithof; Henk A Formijne Jonkers; Denise J C van der Ven; Ger D J van Olden; Tim K Timmers
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2017-08-22

8.  The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: a study of the reliability, construct validity and responsiveness in patients sustaining trauma.

Authors:  Max W de Graaf; Inge Hf Reininga; Klaus W Wendt; Erik Heineman; Mostafa El Moumni
Journal:  Clin Rehabil       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 3.477

9.  Additional calcar support using a blade device reduces secondary varus displacement following reconstruction of the proximal humerus: a prospective study.

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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.