Lauren L Nowak1,2, Milena R Vicente3, Michael D McKee3,4, Jeremy A Hall3,4, Aaron Nauth3,4, Emil H Schemitsch3,5,4,6,7. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, 55 Queen St. East, STE 800, Toronto, ON, M5C 1R6, Canada. Lauren.nowak@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Lauren.nowak@mail.utoronto.ca. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, 55 Queen St. East, STE 800, Toronto, ON, M5C 1R6, Canada. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada. 7. Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to survey surgeons' preferences surrounding the management and evaluation of proximal humerus fractures internationally. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using previous literature and input from practicing orthopaedic surgeon opinion leaders. Between November 13, 2014 and December 31, 2014, the questionnaire was posted on the membership section of three major orthopaedic and shoulder surgery association websites. Survey responses were anonymous. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 134 unique practicing orthopaedic surgeons. The majority of respondents (72%) practiced in North America while 28% practiced internationally. For displaced two-part fractures, a preference for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locking plates was identified (75%). No consensus was reached for preferred treatment of three- and four- part fractures: 37% chose ORIF with locking plates, 26% chose hemi-arthroplasty (HA), and 29% chose reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Preferred treatment types for three- and four-part fractures were marginally significantly different depending on place of practice (North America vs. international, p = 0.058). A significantly larger proportion of surgeons who had completed an upper extremity fellowship (35%) chose RSA for the treatment of three and four-part fractures, compared to those who had not (9%, p = 0.002). No consensus was observed regarding what outcome measure is best to assess function following proximal humerus fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The management of more complex, displaced proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. Additionally, there are conflicting opinions on what outcome measure is best to assess function following the treatment of proximal humerus fractures.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to survey surgeons' preferences surrounding the management and evaluation of proximal humerus fractures internationally. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using previous literature and input from practicing orthopaedic surgeon opinion leaders. Between November 13, 2014 and December 31, 2014, the questionnaire was posted on the membership section of three major orthopaedic and shoulder surgery association websites. Survey responses were anonymous. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 134 unique practicing orthopaedic surgeons. The majority of respondents (72%) practiced in North America while 28% practiced internationally. For displaced two-part fractures, a preference for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locking plates was identified (75%). No consensus was reached for preferred treatment of three- and four- part fractures: 37% chose ORIF with locking plates, 26% chose hemi-arthroplasty (HA), and 29% chose reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Preferred treatment types for three- and four-part fractures were marginally significantly different depending on place of practice (North America vs. international, p = 0.058). A significantly larger proportion of surgeons who had completed an upper extremity fellowship (35%) chose RSA for the treatment of three and four-part fractures, compared to those who had not (9%, p = 0.002). No consensus was observed regarding what outcome measure is best to assess function following proximal humerus fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The management of more complex, displaced proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. Additionally, there are conflicting opinions on what outcome measure is best to assess function following the treatment of proximal humerus fractures.
Authors: John-Erik Bell; Brian C Leung; Kevin F Spratt; Ken J Koval; James D Weinstein; David C Goodman; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michiel G J S Hageman; Prakash Jayakumar; John D King; Thierry G Guitton; Job N Doornberg; David Ring Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Arun J Ramappa; Vaishali Patel; Karan Goswami; David Zurakowski; Corrie Yablon; E Ken Rodriguez; Paul Appleton; Joseph P DeAngelis Journal: Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) Date: 2014-03
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
Authors: Ruben J Hoepelman; Yassine Ochen; Frank J P Beeres; Herman Frima; Christoph Sommer; Christian Michelitsch; Reto Babst; Isabelle R Buenter; Detlef van der Velde; Egerbert-Jan M M Verleisdonk; Rolf H H Groenwold; Roderick M Houwert; Mark van Heijl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240