A study to evaluate functional outcome of various treatment modalities (surgical) of proximal humerus fracture

Mukherjee, Debojyoti; Paul, Anirban

doi:10.52547/rabms.9.2.80

Volume 9, Issue 2 (4-2023) Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2023, 9(2): 80-86 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.52547/rabms.9.2.80

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Mukherjee D, Paul A. A study to evaluate functional outcome of various treatment modalities (surgical) of proximal humerus fracture. Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2023; 9 (2) :80-86
URL: http://ijrabms.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-231-en.html

A study to evaluate functional outcome of various treatment modalities (surgical) of proximal humerus fracture

Debojyoti Mukherjee ^*

, Anirban Paul

Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, R.G.Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India , sk02433@yahoo.com

Abstract: (599 Views)

Background & Aims: Proximal humerus fractures comprise almost 5.7% of all fractures and represent the most common humerus fractures (80%). In addition, proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are the third most common fracture in geriatric patients, typically associated with systemic osteoporosis. Their incidence is expected to triple over the coming three decades. This study aims to evaluate the functional outcome of various treatment modalities (Surgical) for Proximal humerus fracture treatment modalities (Surgical) of Proximal humerus Fracture.
Materials & Methods: This study is a prospective and analytical one. The patients admitted to the orthopaedics ward with fractures of the proximal humerus in the adult age group (above 18) were screened and recruited based on the fulfilment of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifty patients were taken in which plain radiographs of the shoulder (trauma series, i.e. AP, lateral and axillary view), CT scan if needed, and routine pre-anaesthetic investigations were assessed. For statistical analysis, data were entered into a Microsoft excel spreadsheet and then analyzed by SPSS (version 27.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and GraphPad Prism version 5. Two-sample t-tests for a difference in mean involved independent samples or unpaired samples.
Results: In our study, 18(36.0%) patients were treated with closed reduction + percutaneous pinning, 9 (18.0%) patients were treated with hemiarthroplasty, and 23(46.0%) patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation with PHILOS plate. In our study, 13 (26%) patients had four-part fractures, out of which 5(10.0%) patients had four-part fractures with head split, 23(46.0%) patients had three-part fractures, and 14(28.0%) patients had two-part fractures. In our study, 10(20.0%) patients had Abduction Score 4 (61-90), 22(44.0%) patients had Abduction Score 6 (91-120) and 18(36.0%) patients had Abduction Score 8 (121-150).
Conclusion: Good surgical skills and experience of the surgeon in the selection are necessary to achieve the correct and best outcome irrespective of the surgical modality chosen. Proper patient selection and thorough knowledge of anatomy and biomechanical principles are the prerequisites for successful surgery and good functional outcome.

Keywords: Abduction Score, Hemiarthroplasty, Proximal Humerus Fracture

Full-Text [PDF 287 kb] (478 Downloads)

Type of Study: orginal article | Subject: General

References

1. Nordqvist A, Petersen CJ. Incidence and causes of shoulder girdle injuries in an urban population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1995;4(2):107-12. [DOI:10.1016/S1058-2746(05)80063-1] [PMID]

2. Baron JA, Karagas M, Barrett J, Kniffin W, Malenka D, Mayor M, et al. Basic epidemiology of fractures of the upper and lower limb among Americans over 65 years of age. Epidemiology 1996; 7:612-8. [DOI:10.1097/00001648-199611000-00008] [PMID]

3. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 442:87-92. [DOI:10.1097/01.blo.0000194672.79634.78] [PMID]

4. Südkamp NP, Audige L, Lambert S, Hertel R, Konrad G. Path analysis of factors for functional outcome at one year in 463 proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20:1207-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2011.06.009] [PMID]

5. Donnally III CJ, DiPompeo CM, Varacallo M. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Mar 25, 2020. Vertebral Compression Fractures. [URL]

6. Aiyer A, Varacallo M, Boateng H, Reid SJ. Humeral Shaft Fracture with Ipsilateral Anterior Shoulder Dislocation and Posterior Elbow Dislocation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. JBJS Case Connect 2014;4(3):e77-e4. [DOI:10.2106/JBJS.CC.M.00310] [PMID]

7. Varacallo MA, Fox EJ. Osteoporosis and its complications. Med Clin North Am 2014;98(4):817-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.mcna.2014.03.007] [PMID]

8. Soni R., Patel A.,Patel Dr., Jha Dr., Golwala Dr. Study of outcomes of the proximal humerus fractures treated by various modalities. Int J Orthopaed Sci 2018;4:41-4. [DOI:10.22271/ortho.2018.v4.i1a.10]

9. Thyagarajan DS, Haridas SJ, Jones D, Dent C, Evans R, Williams R. Functional outcome following proximal humeral interlocking system plating for displaced proximal humeral fractures. Int J Shoulder Surg 2009;3:57 62. [DOI:10.4103/0973-6042.59971] [PMID] []

10. Shahid R, Mushtaq A, Northover J, Maqsood M. Outcome of proximal humerus fractures treated by PHILOS plate internal fixation. Experience of a district general hospital. Acta Orthop Belg 2008;74(5):602-8. [URL]

11. Geiger EV, Maier M, Kelm A, Wutzler S, Seebach C, Marzi I. Functional outcome and complications following PHILOS plate fixation in proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010;44(1):1-6. [DOI:10.3944/AOTT.2010.2270] [PMID]

12. Kumar A, Waddell JP. Non-operative Management of Proximal Humerus Fractures. In: Biberthaler P, Kirchhoff C, Waddell J, eds. Fractures of the Proximal Humerus. Strategies in Fracture Treatments. Springer: Cham; 2015. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-20300-3_14]

13. Heers G, Torchia ME. [Shoulder hemiarthroplasty in proximal humeral fractures]. Der Orthopade. 2001;30(6):386-94. [DOI:10.1007/s001320170088] [PMID]

14. Jaberg H, Warner JJ, Jakob RP. Percutaneous stabilization of unstable fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74(4):508-15. [DOI:10.2106/00004623-199274040-00006] [PMID]

15. Kayalar M, Toros T, Bal E, Ozaksar K, Gürbüz Y, Ademoğlu Y. Proksimal humerus kiriklarinda perkütan tespit için hasta seçiminin önemi [The importance of patient selection for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures with percutaneous technique]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2009;43(1):35-41. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2009.035 [DOI:10.3944/AOTT.2009.035] [PMID]

16. Yang H., Li Z., Zhou F., Wang D., Zhong B. A prospective clinical study of proximal humerus fractures treated with a locking proximal humerus plate. J Orthop Trauma 2011;25(1):11-7. [DOI:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181d2d04c] [PMID]

17. Soete PJ, Clayson PE, Costenoble VH. Transitory percutaneous pinning in fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;8(6):569-73.doi:10.1016/s1058-2746(99)90091-5 [DOI:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90091-5] [PMID]

18. Tenor Junior AC, Ribeiro FR, Brasil Filho R, Filardi Filho CS, Costa GL, Menniti EL. Avaliação do tratamento cirúrgico das fraturas em duas ou três partes do úmero proximal com o" sistema paraquedas". Rev Bras Ortop 2010;45:241-6. [DOI:10.1590/S0102-36162010000300005]

19. Zhang H, Ni W, Gao S, Liang X, Zhou A. [Long PHILOS locking compression plate for treatment of proximal humerus and humeral shaft fractures]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2009;23(4):419-22. Chinese. PMID: 19431978. [Google Scholar]