PURPOSE: Three part and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus offer challenges in reduction and plate fixation, with considerable debate about use of Deltoid splitting (DS) and Delto-pectoral (DP) approaches, especially when they involving the greater tuberosity. We prospectively compared the results using DS approach and DP approach in these cases, with special focus on functional outcomes, complications, and ease of tuberosity reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 84 patients with three- and four-part proximal humerus fracture were alternately allocated the DP approach or DS approach for proximal humerus locking plate fixation. The outcome analysis was done by evaluating relative Constant score and ease of surgical reduction of greater tuberosity; radiological malunion was evaluated using Beredjiklian classification and complications were noted. RESULTS: At mean follow-up of 23 months (19-48 months), the mean 'relative Constant score was 74.27 ± 8.19 in the DP group and 73.26 ± 8.02 in the DS group and the difference was statistically insignificant (p = 0.988). There was no significant difference with respect to shoulder ROM, abductor strength, radiological malunion or complications. However, the mean surgical time was significantly less (p value = 0.042) in DS group (65 ± 5 min) in comparison to DP group (92 ± 4.3 min); significantly less difficulties were documented by the surgeon in reducing the greater tuberosity in DS group(p value = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although surgical time was reduced and greater tuberosity reduction was easier in DS group, the other outcomes were similar; either surgical approach can be used based, and can be based on the experience and comfort level of the surgeon.
PURPOSE: Three part and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus offer challenges in reduction and plate fixation, with considerable debate about use of Deltoid splitting (DS) and Delto-pectoral (DP) approaches, especially when they involving the greater tuberosity. We prospectively compared the results using DS approach and DP approach in these cases, with special focus on functional outcomes, complications, and ease of tuberosity reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 84 patients with three- and four-part proximal humerus fracture were alternately allocated the DP approach or DS approach for proximal humerus locking plate fixation. The outcome analysis was done by evaluating relative Constant score and ease of surgical reduction of greater tuberosity; radiological malunion was evaluated using Beredjiklian classification and complications were noted. RESULTS: At mean follow-up of 23 months (19-48 months), the mean 'relative Constant score was 74.27 ± 8.19 in the DP group and 73.26 ± 8.02 in the DS group and the difference was statistically insignificant (p = 0.988). There was no significant difference with respect to shoulder ROM, abductor strength, radiological malunion or complications. However, the mean surgical time was significantly less (p value = 0.042) in DS group (65 ± 5 min) in comparison to DP group (92 ± 4.3 min); significantly less difficulties were documented by the surgeon in reducing the greater tuberosity in DS group(p value = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although surgical time was reduced and greater tuberosity reduction was easier in DS group, the other outcomes were similar; either surgical approach can be used based, and can be based on the experience and comfort level of the surgeon.