| Literature DB >> 28499431 |
Li Zhao1, Peng Yang1, Lei Zhu1, Ai-Min Chen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current treatments for proximal humeral fractures include conservative treatment, conventional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and MIPPO through deltoid-splitting approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of MIPPO versus ORIF via the deltoid-pectoralis approach in elderly patients with proximal humeral fractures.Entities:
Keywords: Deltoid-pectoralis approach; Minimal invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO); Proximal humeral fractures
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28499431 PMCID: PMC5429512 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1538-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Follow-up data of a 66-year-old female. a Pre-operative X-ray shows an unstable right proximal humeral fracture. b intraoperative incisions (a 5-6 cm incision and a 1 cm incision). c/d Post-operative X-rays in in anteroposterior and lateral views show a good reduction and proper placement of the plate
Demographics of the patients
| Characteristic | Value | MIPPO group | ORIF group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | M/F | 21/15 | 9/8 | 12/7 | 0.548 |
| Age | Average±SD | 64.0±5.8 | 64.3±6.7 | 63.6±5.0 | 0.759 |
| BMI(kg/m2) | Average | 25.9±3.0 | 26.8±3.2 | 25.1±2.5 | 0.08 |
| Mechanism | Traffic accident | 7 | 3 | 4 | |
| Fall | 17 | 7 | 10 | ||
| Sports | 12 | 7 | 5 | ||
| NEER classification | II | 15 | 8 | 7 | |
| III | 21 | 9 | 12 | ||
| time between injury and operation(days) | Average±SD | 2.7±0.8 | 2.8±0.7 | 2.7±0.9 | |
| Follow-up(months) | Average(range) | 10(4-24) | |||
Follow-up data of the patients
| Characteristic | Value | MIPPO group | ORIF group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant-Murley score | Average±SD | 87.8±1.9 | 88.8±1.0 | 86.9±2.1 | 0.001 |
| NEER score | Average±SD | 86.5±2.2 | 87.4±1.2 | 85.7±2.6 | 0.019 |
| Intraoperative blood loss(ML) | Average±SD | 137.7±22.0 | 129.2±17.8 | 145.3±23.0 | 0.026 |
| length of operation (minutes) | Average±SD | 57.8±8.1 | 53.6±7.3 | 61.4±7.0 | 0.002 |
| Union time(months) | Average±SD | 4.5±1.0 | 4.5±1.1 | 4.5±1.0 | 0.873 |
| VAS(Visual Analogue Score(0-10):indicates pain from minimum to maximum.) | Average±SD | 3.1±1.3 | 3.1±1.3 | 3.2±1.3 | 0.726 |
| The short form (36) health survey. | Average±SD | 125.6±9.1 | 129.4±7.8 | 122.3±8.9 | 0.017 |
| Complications | Incision infection(1);pneumonia(1) | Incision infection(2); decubitus(1) | |||
Demographics of statistical data of subgroup by NEER type
| Characteristic | NEER type II | NEER type III | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIPPO | ORIF |
| MIPPO | ORIF |
| |
| Constant-Murley score | 88.4±0.7 | 87.1±2.7 | 0.231 | 89.2±1.0 | 86.8±1.8 |
|
| NEER score | 87.3±0.7 | 86.6±2.6 | 0.494 | 87.4±1.5 | 85.2±2.6 |
|
| Intraoperative blood loss(ML) | 131.0±12.3 | 148.3±21.1 | 0.070 | 127.7±22.2 | 143.6±24.8 | 0.145 |
| length of operation (minutes) | 55.3±7.9 | 59.9±6.5 | 0.245 | 52.2±6.8 | 62.3±7.4 |
|
| Union time(months) | 4.5±1.4 | 4.9±1.1 | 0.595 | 4.4±0.9 | 4.3±0.9 | 0.779 |
| VAS | 3.8±1.0 | 3.6±1.1 | 0.755 | 2.4±1.2 | 3.0±1.3 | 0.345 |
| SF36 | 125.8±9.6 | 122.6±6.2 | 0.469 | 132.6±4.1 | 122.1±10.5 |
|
Demographics of statistical data of subgroup by BMI index
| Characteristic | BMI<26.0 | BMI≥26.0 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIPPO | ORIF |
| MIPPO | ORIF |
| |
| Constant-Murley score | 89.1±0.69 | 86.7±2.31 |
| 88.6±1.1 | 87.1±1.9 |
|
| NEER score | 87.7±1.25 | 86.0±2.98 | 0.17 | 87.1±1.1 | 85.3±2.3 |
|
| Intraoperative blood loss(ML) | 118.1±16.3 | 135.2±16.5 | 0.052 | 137.0±14.9 | 156.6±24.9 | 0.052 |
| length of operation (minutes) | 51.4±7.3 | 60.4±8.2 |
| 55.2±7.2 | 62.6±5.7 |
|
| Union time(months) | 5.1±0.9 | 4.6±1.1 | 0.292 | 4.0±1.1 | 4.4±0.9 | 0.336 |
| VAS | 2.5±1.6 | 2.8±1.2 | 0.745 | 3.4±1.0 | 3.7±1.2 | 0.603 |
| SF36 | 128.3±11.4 | 125±8.1 | 0.495 | 130.1±4.6 | 119.2±9.3 |
|
Fig. 2At the 6-month follow-up, the patient had a good shoulder function. The 6-month constant score was 90