Literature DB >> 26744165

Non-operative treatment of four-part fractures of the proximal end of the humerus: results of a prospective and retrospective multicentric study.

Romain Bouchet1, Damien Block2, Thomas D'ollonne3, François Gadea4, Julia Gaillot1, François Sirveaux2, Dominique Saragaglia5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and medium-term results of non-operative treatment of four-part fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. The initial hypothesis was that non-operative treatment of fractures with little or no displacement is equivalent or superior to surgical treatment, and that non-operative treatment is probably insufficient for displaced fractures.
METHODS: This was a multicentric, prospective and retrospective study, based on 384 four-part proximal humerus fractures, 58 of which involved non-operative treatments - 37 in the prospective study (Pro-CT4) and 21 in the retrospective study (Retro-CT4). The average patient age was 64 +/- 14 years (39-90); 66 % were female and 34 % male. In 88 % of these cases, non-operative treatment was chosen for the fracture, as there was little or no displacement. In 10 % of cases, non-operative treatment was chosen "by default", due to the patient's medical conditions, as surgery was contraindicated, and in 2 % of cases due to the patient refusing surgery. All patients were reviewed clinically and radiologically, with SSV evaluation, absolute and weighted Constant scores and the Quick DASH score all assessed. The main evaluation criterion was the weighted Constant score which was considered a failure when below 70 %.
RESULTS: In the Pro-CT4 study, the average follow-up period was 11 +/- four months (5-18) with functional scores as follows: average SSV: 72 +/- 26 % (8-100); average Constant score: 65 +/- 21 points (21-95); average weighted Constant score: 86 +/- 26 % (32-130); average Quick DASH: 23 +/- 21 (0-64). 27 % of patients had a weighted Constant score below 70 %. In the Retro-CT4 study, the average follow-up period was 38 +/- 13 months (18-62) with functional scores as follows: average SSV: 73 +/- 17 % (30-100); average Constant score: 68 +/- 18 points (33-95); average weighted Constant score: 88 +/- 27 % (47-133); average Quick DASH: 18 +/- 16 (0-48); 24 % of patients had a weighted Constant score below 70 %.
CONCLUSION: This study confirms our initial hypothesis. When non-operative treatment of four-part proximal humerus fractures is carried out by choice, the results are excellent. However, when this treatment is carried out "by default" - especially because surgery is contraindicated - the results are disappointing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: prospective and retrospective studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Four-part fracture; Fracture; Humerus; Non-operative treatment; Proximal

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26744165     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-3090-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  20 in total

1.  Early complications of operatively treated proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Adam M Smith; Rodrigo M Mardones; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006-11-16       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Mika Palvanen; Pekka Kannus; Seppo Niemi; Jari Parkkari
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Trends in epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Christian Bahrs; Tanja Stojicevic; Stojicevic Tanja; Gunnar Blumenstock; Blumenstock Gunnar; Stig Brorson; Brorson Stig; Andreas Badke; Ulrich Stöckle; Stöckle Ulrich; Bernd Rolauffs; Rolauffs Bernd; Thomas Freude; Freude Thomas
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-05-25       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.

Authors:  C R Constant; A H Murley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Hemiarthroplasty for humeral four-part fractures for patients 65 years and older: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Harm W Boons; Jon H Goosen; Susan van Grinsven; Job L van Susante; Corné J van Loon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Fractures of the proximal humerus in osteoporotic bone.

Authors:  Ralph Hertel
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-10-30       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus. The results of non-operative treatment.

Authors:  C M Court-Brown; H Cattermole; M M McQueen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-05

8.  Decision making in displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: fracture or surgeon based?

Authors:  Gertraud Gradl; Matthias Knobe; Hans-Christoph Pape; Paul Valentin Neuhaus; David Ring; Thierry Guitton
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  C M Court-Brown; A Garg; M M McQueen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2001-08

10.  Early complications in proximal humerus fractures (OTA Types 11) treated with locked plates.

Authors:  Kenneth A Egol; Crispin C Ong; Michael Walsh; Laith M Jazrawi; Nirmal C Tejwani; Joseph D Zuckerman
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.512

View more
  3 in total

1.  Six thousand papers already: "the outcome of a matter is better than its beginning…".

Authors:  Marius M Scarlat; Marko Pećina
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Open reduction and fixation with a locking plate without bone grafting is a reasonable and safe option for treating proximal humerus nonunion.

Authors:  Stefan Quadlbauer; Georg J Hofmann; Martin Leixnering; Rudolf Rosenauer; Thomas Hausner; Jürgen Reichetseder
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Numerical investigation of fracture impaction in proximal humeral fracture fixation with locking plate and intramedullary nail.

Authors:  Yen-Nien Chen; Chih-Wei Chang; Chia-Wei Lin; Chih-Wei Wang; Yao-Te Peng; Chih-Han Chang; Chun-Ting Li
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 3.075

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.