| Literature DB >> 34671509 |
Huihui Cheng1,2, Jiali Yu1, Zhirui Dong3, Huanyi Lin4, Qilong Liu5, Xinchao Zhang3, Jianguo Wu6, Xianshang Zeng7, Weiguang Yu7, Bo Xu8.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To date, there is little research assessing the efficacy of a proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) plate plus an allogeneic fibula inserted obliquely in the treatment of 2-part proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with calcar comminution in patients >60 years old with severe osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of elderly patients with osteoporotic 2-part PHFs combined with medial column (calcar) instability or disruption who experienced a PHILOS plate plus an allogeneic fibula inserted obliquely.Entities:
Keywords: allogeneic fibula; calcar; loss of reduction; proximal humerus fractures; varus collapse
Year: 2021 PMID: 34671509 PMCID: PMC8521760 DOI: 10.1177/21514593211050155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil ISSN: 2151-4585
Figure 1.Schematic representation of allogeneic fibula implantation (A). Tools for making and implanting allogeneic fibulas (B). Bone tunnel entrance marker (C). Intraoperative fluoroscopy of the bone tunnel position (D). Production of allogeneic fibula (E). Allogeneic fibula implanted along the bone tunnel (F). Postoperative X-ray photographs of the proximal humerus (G). Postoperative CT scan of the proximal humerus (H).
Figure 2.Flow diagram demonstrating methods for identification of patients to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of elderly patients with osteoporotic PHFs combined with medial column (calcar) instability or disruption who experienced a PHILOS plate plus an allogeneic fibula inserted obliquely, and reasons for exclusion. PHF: proximal humerus fractures.
Patient Demographics.
| Variable | N = 86 |
|---|---|
| Gender, M/F | 39/47 |
| Age, years | 68.8 ± 5.2 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 27.7 ± 3.8 |
| BMD | −3.5 ± 0.3 |
| Side, left/right | 41/45 |
| Interval to surgery from admission | 6.8 (1 day–12 days) |
| Comorbidities, no% | |
| Hypertension | 23 (26.7) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 25 (29.1) |
| Pulmonary | 11 (12.8) |
| Cerebrovascular accident | 13 (15.1) |
| Other | 7 (8.1) |
| Mechanism of injury | |
| Traffic | 20 (23.3) |
| Falling | 54 (62.8) |
| Other | 12 (13.9) |
| ASA index, no.% | |
| I | 16 (18.6) |
| II | 25 (29.1) |
| III | 45 (52.3) |
| Constant scores prior to surgery | 39 (26-58) |
| ASES scores prior to surgery | 43 (26-64) |
| Follow-up time (months) | 24 (15.3-27.6) |
BMI: body mass index; BMD: bone mineral density; ASA: American Society of Anaesthesiologists; ASES: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.
Functional Outcomes at Each Follow-Up.
| Time, month(s) after Surgery | Percentage of Follow-Up, No.% | Constant Scores | ASES Scores |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 97 | 73 (54–87) | 76 (58–82) |
| 6 | 95 | 76 (57–89) | 77 (64–86) |
| 12 | 93 | 77 (64–88) | 82 (62–90) |
| 15 | 91 | 78 (65–90) | 84 (67–92) |
| 18 | 89 | 82 (68–94) | 83 (66–95) |
| 24 | 86 | 81 (66–96) | 84 (65–97) |
| Final follow-up | 86 | 81 (67–95) | 83 (65–96) |
ASES: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.
The key Orthopaedic Complications.
| Variable, No. % | N = 86 |
|---|---|
| Total complications | 22 (25.6) |
| Patients affected | 18 (20.9) |
| Loss of reduction | 4 (4.7) |
| Varus collapse | 0 (0) |
| Avascular necrosis of the humeral head | 0 (0) |
| Aseptic loosening | 4 (4.7) |
| Non-union | 1 (1.2) |
| Periprosthetic fracture | 4 (4.7) |
| Revision | 3 (3.5) |
| Dislocation | 1 (1.2) |
| Deep infection | 0 (.0) |
| Unbearable shoulder pain | 5 (5.8) |