Proximal humeral fractures: non-operative treatment versus intramedullary nailing in 2-, 3- and 4-part fractures

Abstract Background Proximal humeral fractures can be treated non-operatively or operatively with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and arthroplasty. Our objective was to assess practice patterns for operative and non-operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures. We also report on complications, readmissions, in-hospital mortality, and need for surgery after initial treatment of proximal humeral fractures in California, Florida, and New York. Methods The State Inpatient Databases and State Emergency Department Databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, were used for the states of California (2005–2011), Florida (2005–2014), and New York (2008–2014). Data on patients with proximal humeral fractures was extracted. Patients underwent non-operative or operative (ORIF or arthroplasty) treatment at baseline and were followed for at least 4 years from the index presentation. If the patient needed subsequent surgery, time to event was calculated in days, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted. Results At the index visit, 90.3% of patients with proximal humeral fractures had non-operative treatment, 6.7% had ORIF, and 3.0% had arthroplasty. 7.6% of patients initially treated non-operatively, 6.6% initially treated with ORIF, and 7.2% initially treated with arthroplasty needed surgery during follow-up. Device complications were the primary reason for readmission in 5.3% of ORIF patients and 6.7% of arthroplasty patients (p < 0.0001). All-cause in-hospital mortality was 9.8% for patients managed non-operatively, 8.8% for ORIF, and 10.0% for arthroplasty (p = 0.003). Conclusions A majority of patients with proximal humeral fractures underwent non-operative treatment. There was a relatively high all-cause in-hospital mortality irrespective of treatment. Given the recent debate on operative versus non-operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures, our study provides valuable information on the need for revision surgery after initial treatment. The differences in rates of revision surgery between patients treated non-operatively, with ORIF, and with arthroplasty were small in magnitude. At nine years of follow-up, ORIF had the lowest probability of needing follow-up surgery, and arthroplasty had the highest.

Download Full-text

Non-operative treatment versus tension-band osteosynthesis in three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures

International Orthopaedics ◽

10.1007/s002640050268 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 22 (5) ◽

pp. 316-320 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

T. Ilchmann ◽

P. E. Ochsner ◽

H. Wingstrand ◽

K. Jonsson

Keyword(s):

Operative Treatment ◽

Tension Band ◽

Proximal Humeral Fractures ◽

Humeral Fractures

Download Full-text

Displaced proximal humeral fractures: operative versus non-operative treatment—a 2-year extension of a randomized controlled trial

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology ◽

10.1007/s00590-013-1403-y ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 24 (7) ◽

pp. 1067-1073 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Tore Fjalestad ◽

Margrethe Øye Hole

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Operative Treatment ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Proximal Humeral Fractures ◽

Humeral Fractures ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Surgical management of 2- or 3-part proximal humeral fractures: comparison of plate, nail and K-wires

MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY ◽

10.1007/s12306-020-00686-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

N. Setaro ◽

M. Rotini ◽

P. Luciani ◽

G. Facco ◽

A. Gigante

Keyword(s):

Intramedullary Nailing ◽

Revision Surgery ◽

Short Form ◽

Functional Results ◽

Proximal Humeral Fractures ◽

Humeral Fractures ◽

Locking Plates ◽

Group Iii ◽

Group I ◽

Group Ii

Abstract Background Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are fairly common injuries, and their treatment is a challenge. The aim of this study is to compare clinical and functional outcomes of different osteosynthesis techniques. Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed patients’ files and the hospital’s digital database between March 2002 and April 2018. We treated surgically 148 patients with 2- and 3-part PHFs: 64 with plate and screws, 53 with intramedullary nailing and 31 with retrograde K-wires. We constituted three groups according to the type of treatment and two subgroups for each according to the number of fragments (Neer II or Neer III). Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Short Form-12 (SF-12) scores were recorded. Results Mean DASH and SF-12 scores both from the group treated with plate (Group I) and the one subjected to intramedullary nailing (Group II) were statistically superior to results from the patients treated by retrograde K-wires (Group III), while nails showed better functional results than the locking plates. In the first two groups, no difference was found between Neer II and III subgroups, while in Group III the DASH scores were significantly better in Neer II subgroup than those in Neer III subgroup. Avascular necrosis was the most frequent cause of revision surgery in Group I (4 cases) where we had 8 cases of reintervention (12.5%). In Group II, the subacromial impingement was the only cause for revision surgery with 3 cases (5.6%). Conclusions Intramedullary nails showed better functional results and a lower complication rate than the locking plates. Both techniques showed superior results compared to those available with retrograde K-wires. So the nail seems to be a more reliable and adequate method for treating 2- and 3-part proximal humeral fractures.

Download Full-text

Proximal humeral fractures in Finland

The Bone & Joint Journal ◽

10.1302/0301-620x.104b1.bjj-2021-0987.r1 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 104-B (1) ◽

pp. 150-156

Author(s):

Oskari K. Leino ◽

Kaisa K. Lehtimäki ◽

Keijo Mäkelä ◽

Ville Äärimaa ◽

Elina Ekman

Keyword(s):

Operative Treatment ◽

Surgical Procedure ◽

Plate Osteosynthesis ◽

Proximal Humeral Fractures ◽

Humeral Fractures ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Diagnostic Codes ◽

Procedure Codes ◽

Adjusted Incidence ◽

Methods Of Treatment

Aims Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are common. There is increasing evidence that most of these fractures should be treated conservatively. However, recent studies have shown an increase in use of operative treatment. The aim of this study was to identify the trends in the incidence and methods of treatment of PHFs in Finland. Methods The study included all Finnish inhabitants aged ≥ 16 years between 1997 and 2019. All records, including diagnostic codes for PHFs and all surgical procedure codes for these fractures, were identified from two national registers. Data exclusion criteria were implemented in order to identify only acute PHFs, and the operations performed to treat them. Results During the 23-year study period, 79,676 PHFs were identified, and 14,941 operations were performed to treat them. The incidence of PHFs steadily increased. In 2019, the overall incidence was 105 per 100,000 person-years (105). The sex-adjusted incidence for females was 147.1 per 105, and the age-adjusted incidence for patients aged ≥ 80 years was 407.1 per 105. The incidence of operative treatment for PHFs rose during the first half of the study period and decreased during the second half. The use of plate osteosynthesis in particular decreased. In 2019, the incidence of operative treatment for PHFs was 13.2 per 105, with 604 operations. Conclusion Although the incidence of PHFs is steadily increasing, particularly in elderly females, the incidence of operative treatment is now decreasing, which is in line with current literature regarding their treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):150–156.

Download Full-text