Glenohumeral joint dislocation is rare in children with proximal humeral fractures: a descriptive study and literature review

Background Glenohumeral dislocation combined with fracture of the proximal humerus is extremely rare in children, and this study aims to investigate its incidence in the pediatric population and review the treatment strategy for this condition. Methods Between Jan 2014 and Jan 2019, 280 patients with unilateral proximal humeral fractures were retrospectively reviewed. Imaging and follow-up notes were reviewed for patients with a predilection for glenohumeral joint dislocation. Six (2.14%) patients between the ages of 5 and 10 years were confirmed as glenohumeral joint dislocation and included in the study. All these patients underwent closed reduction and external fixation under general anesthesia. Results Out of 280 patients with proximal humeral fractures, only 6 patients, including 4 males and 2 females, were confirmed as glenohumeral joint dislocation. ROM was normal compared with the contralateral shoulder in every patient at the last follow-up. There was no case of radiological abnormality, including avascular necrosis or devascularization of the humeral head. Conclusions Glenohumeral dislocation is a rare entity associated with the proximal humerus fracture in children, with an overall incidence in our case series was 2.14%. Reduction and stabilization of such injury using an external fixator is a suitable choice for pediatric patients that failed closed reduction.

Inter-rater agreement among shoulder surgeons on treatment options for proximal humeral fractures among shoulder surgeons

Background: The treatment approach for proximal humeral fractures is determined by various factors, including patient age, sex, dominant arm, fracture pattern, presence of osteoporosis, preexisting arthritis, rotator cuff status, and medical comorbidities. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the optimal treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures. This study aimed to assess and quantify the decision-making process for either conservative or surgical treatment and the choice of surgical method among shoulder surgeons when treating proximal humeral fractures.Methods: Forty sets of true anteroposterior view, scapular Y projection view, and three-dimensional computed tomograms of proximal humeral fractures were provided to 12 shoulder surgeons along with clinical information. Surveys regarding Neer classification, decisions between conservative and surgical treatments, and chosen methods were conducted twice with an interval of 2 months. The factors affecting the treatment plans were also assessed.Results: The inter-rater agreement was fair for Neer classification (kappa=0.395), moderate for the decision between conservative and surgical treatments (kappa=0.528), and substantial for the chosen method of surgical treatment (kappa=0.740). The percentage of agreement was 71.1% for Neer classification, 84.6% for the decision between conservative and surgical treatment, and 96.4% for the chosen method of surgical treatment. The fracture pattern was the most crucial factor in deciding between conservative and surgical treatments, followed by age and physical activity.Conclusions: The decision between conservative and surgical treatment for proximal humeral fractures showed good agreement, while the chosen method between osteosynthesis and arthroplasty showed substantial agreement among shoulder surgeons.

Proximal humeral fractures in Finland

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.

Surgical treatment of patients with extra-articular fractures of the distal humerus

Background. The article deals with extra-articular fractures of the distal humerus, according to the АО/ASIF classification, which includes types 12A–C, depending on the plane of the fracture and the nature of the fragment displacement. The purpose was to study the features of the lower third humeral fractures and to conduct a comparative analysis of the outcomes of surgical treatment. Material and methods. One hundred and twenty-seven patients with extra-articular fractures of the distal humerus were under observation. For retrospective analysis, they were divided into a comparison group (n = 92) who underwent traditional bone osteosynthesis and a study group (n = 35) in whom a rod-type external fixation device developed by us was used. The short- and long-term functional results were studied using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Results. Various indicators, established by us for comparison, and treatment outcomes were analyzed in 101 patients (comparison group — 68 people, study group — 33). Many values of these parameters were quite comparable in terms of the age, gender, hospitalization terms, duration of surgeries, etc., but the revealed differences in indicators still did not reach the level of statistical reliability (p > 0.05). Evaluation of the clinical use of the device proposed by us showed restoration of the humeral anatomy, quite comparable to that in bone osteosynthesis, and the achievement of the final result of treatment. However, the number of complications by type and by total number was significantly higher (4.5 times; p ˂ 0.001) in the comparison group, where it accounted for the largest share of cases of neuropathies (16.18 %), nonunions (8.82 %), elbow contractures (8.82 %) and heterotopic ossification (4.42 %). The final score on the Mayo Elbow Performance Score in the comparison group was 84.9 ± 10.2 points, in the study group — 92.6 ± 3.7 points. At the same time, the total number of positive treatment outcomes after bone osteosynthesis was 66.18 %, after transosseous osteosynthesis — 81.82 %. Conclusions. The analysis of the data obtained allows us to recommend a method of minimally invasive osteosynthesis with a rod device of external controlled fixation as a method of choice for wider clinical use in the treatment of patients with lower third humeral fractures.

Treatment outcomes in humeral fractures of different location (review)

The choice of treatment (open reduction and internal fixation) for a humeral fracture with a plate versus an intramedullary nail is highly debated. We compared outcomes (fracture union, reoperation, and adverse events) of intramedullary nailing and plate fixation in patients with proximal humeral, humeral shaft, and distal humeral fractures. No significant differences were found between intramedullary nailing and plate fixation for fracture union, reoperation, or adverse events in patients with proximal humeral or humeral shaft fractures. There is a scarcity of evidence comparing intramedullary nailing and plating for distal humeral fractures. No recommendations can be given from current evidence. Surgeons may have to continue to use discretion based on their personal preference, experience as well as patient’s characteristics and fracture features before more high-quality evidence is available.

Surgical treatments of patients with periprosthetic humeral fracture and comorbidities

Background: Periprosthetic humeral fractures represent a complex and rare complication. Currently, there is no standardized procedure for management or classification of these fractures. Questions/purposes: This unique case series purpose was to look at surgical outcomes and comorbidity profiles of 10 PHF patients. Subsequent analysis looked at whether these outcomes could add to the discussion of a proposed standard of care in a patient cohort with significant comorbidities. Patients and methods: All patients with humeral fractures from 2008-2019 were analyzed for inclusion. A total of ten patients met the inclusion criteria; humeral fracture concurrent with a shoulder arthroplasty. Each patient was managed surgically using a locking plate with or without cerclage wiring. Outcome analysis was then performed for each patient. Humoral fractures managed conservatively were removed from the dataset along with periprosthetic fractures around an elbow arthroplasty, IM nail, or supracondylar fracture after shoulder arthroplasty. Results: The average union time in all patients was 13.27±2.90 (9.86-17.29) weeks. There was no significant difference between patients treated with cerclage wiring or without. All patients had successful union except for a patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. There were two radial nerve palsies. The average Deyo-Charlson score and BMI was 7.1±.84 (4-13) and 29.89 respectively. Conclusion: The treatment of PHFs using the technique of ORIF with locking plate with or without cerclage wiring provides satisfactory outcomes in a patient population that usually includes significant comorbidities. Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study Level IV Retrospective Review.