| Literature DB >> 34429822 |
P K George1, B Dasgupta1, S M Bhaladhare1, Bpv Reddy1, A Jain1, A D Jogani1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Controversies exist in treatment of proximal humerus fractures as treatment options vary greatly from conservative management, closed pinning, stacked intramedullary nails, plating and hemi-arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to study the fracture patterns of each case and document the functional outcome and complications post-operative in the management of proximal humerus fractures operated with proximal humerus plate.Entities:
Keywords: PHILOS; humerus fracture; humerus plating; proximal humerus fracture; proximal humerus locking plating
Year: 2021 PMID: 34429822 PMCID: PMC8381672 DOI: 10.5704/MOJ.2107.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malays Orthop J ISSN: 1985-2533
Fig. 2:(a, b) Plate position and intra-operative C-Arm.
Fig. 3:Distribution of the Neers pattern in the study population.
Number of patients in defined flexion range at each follow-up visit
| Range of Flexion | Number of patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| At 1 1/2 month | At 3rd month | At 6th month | |
| < 60° | 22 | 3 | 2 |
| 60° – 90° | 13 | 31 | 12 |
| 90° – 120° | 0 | 1 | 21 |
| 120° – 180° | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 35 | 35 | 35 |
Number of patients in defined abduction range at each follow-up visit
| Range of Abduction | Number of patients for Abduction | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| At 1 1/2 month | At 3rd month | At 6th month | |
| < 60 | 24 | 8 | 1 |
| 60 – 90 | 11 | 21 | 12 |
| 90 – 120 | 0 | 6 | 22 |
| 120 – 180 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 35 | 35 | 35 |
Number of patients in defined external rotation range at each follow-up visit
| External Rotation (degrees) | Number of patients at each follow-up visits | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| At 1 1/2 month | At 3rd month | At 6th month | |
| < 30 | 16 | 7 | 5 |
| 30 – 60 | 19 | 28 | 18 |
| 60 – 90 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| Total | 35 | 35 | 35 |
Number of patients in defined internal rotation range at each follow-up visit
| Internal Rotation (degrees) | Number of patients at each follow-up visits | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| At 1 1/2 month | At 3rd month | At 6th month | |
| < 30 | 15 | 8 | 6 |
| 30 – 60 | 20 | 27 | 6 |
| 60 – 90 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
| Total | 35 | 35 | 35 |
Absolute constant score vs age of patient
| Absolute Constant Score | Age group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 - 50 (n=19) | > 50 (n=16) | P-value | |||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| At 1 1/2 month | 37.52 | 5.86 | 35.62 | 4.83 | < 0.001 |
| At 3rd month | 44.89 | 2.90 | 42.81 | 3.27 | < 0.001 |
| At 6th month | 52.89 | 5.65 | 50.5 | 7.69 | < 0.001 |
Fig. 4:Distribution of DASH score
Fig. 5:Mean DASH score vs type of fracture.
Mean DASH score vs age of patient
| DASH Score at | Age group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 - 50 (n=19) | > 50 (n=16) | P-value | |||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| At 1 1/2 month | 41.92 | 5.92 | 43.20 | 7.98 | < 0.001 |
| At 3rd month | 33.67 | 9.53 | 34.58 | 11.80 | < 0.001 |
| At 6th month | 27.01 | 11.67 | 27.69 | 14.47 | < 0.001 |
Fig. 6:Mean DASH score vs gender.
Fig. 1:(a, b) Incidence of complications in the study population.
Distribution of absolute constant score post-operatively at each follow-up visit
| Absolute Constant Score | Number of patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| At 1 1/2 month (%) | At 3rd month (%) | At 6th month (%) | |
| 0 – 25 | 1 (2.86%) | 0 | 0 |
| 26 – 50 | 34 (97%) | 35 (100%) | 16 (45.71%) |
| 51 – 75 | 0 | 0 | 19 (54.29%) |
| 76 – 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 35 | 35 | 35 |