A new plate design to treat displaced 3-4 parts proximal humeral fractures in comparison to the most tested and used plate: clinical and radiographic study
By
Giuseppe Rollo
,
Giuseppe Rollo
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology,
Vito Fazzi Hospital
, Lecce
, Italy
Aim Proximal humeral fractures are common and most complex patterns currently represent a challenge for surgeons. Difficulties in obtaining good anatomical reduction (particularly of great tuberosity) often lead to unsatisfactory results; choices often fall onto prosthesis implantation against fixation options. The aim of this study was to compare a new design of proximal humeral plate with the most used plates in the treatment of these injures by analysing outcomes and complications. Methods Two hundred patients with proximal 3 or 4 parts humeral fracture were enrolled (Neer 3-4). First group treated with PGR Plate composed of 98 patients. Second group treated with Philos Plate composed of 102 patients. Evaluation criteria were Non-Union Scoring System, duration of surgery, complications, objective quality of life and elbow function (Constant Shoulder Score), subjective quality of life and elbow function (Oxford Shoulder Score), post-op radiographs, centrum collum diaphyseal angle. Evaluation endpoint was 12 months. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to the selected evaluation parameters. Achievement of good shoulder range of motion and ability to perform normal daily living activities was obtained in both groups. The PGR had a positive impact on treatment results of varuspattern of proximal humeral fractures. Conclusions The PGR allowed good clinical and radiographic results in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures, comparable to those obtained with Philos. Also, PGR had the advantage to aid and keep the anatomical reduction of patterns of fracture involving the greater tuberosity.
Bergdahl C, Ekholm C, Wennergren D, Nilsson F, Möller M. Epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of 2,011 humeral fractures: data from the Swedish Fracture Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;159.
2.
Singh A, Adams A, Burchette R, Dell R, Funahashi T, Navarro R. The effect of osteoporosis management on proximal humeral fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;191–8.
3.
Bahrs C, Stojicevic T, Blumenstock G, Brorson S, Badke A, Stockle U, et al. Trends in epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. 2014;1697–704.
4.
Sproul R, Iyengar J, Devcic Z, Feeley B. A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2011;408–13.
5.
Dai J, Chai Y, Wang C, Wen G. Meta-analysis comparing locking plate fixation with hemiarthroplasty for complex proximal humeral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;305–13.
6.
Handoll H, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;
7.
Carofino B, Leopold S. Classifications in brief: the Neer classification for proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;39–43.
8.
Calori G, Colombo M, Mazza E, Mazzola S, Malagoli E, Marelli N, et al. Validation of the Non-Union Scoring System in 300 long bone nonunions. Injury. 2014;(Suppl 6):93–7.
9.
Ban I, Troelsen A, Christiansen D, Svendsen S, Kristensen M. Standardised test protocol (Constant Score) for evaluation of functionality in patients with shoulder disorders. Dan Med J. 2013;4608.
10.
Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;119–23.
11.
Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer F. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;331–8.
12.
Kaisidis A, Pantos P, Bochlos D, Lindner H. Biomechanical analysis of the fixation strength of a novel plate for greater tuberosity fractures. Open Orthop J. 2018;218–28.
13.
Palumbo B, Gutierrez S, Santoni B, Mighell M. Biomechanical investigation of locked plate fixation with suture augmentation in a comminuted threepart proximal humerus fracture model. Open Journal of Orthopedics. 2017;180–91.
14.
Jabran A, Peach C, Ren L. Biomechanical analysis of plate systems for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. 2018;47.
15.
Matassi F, Angeloni R, Carulli C, Civinini R, Bella D, Redl L, et al. Locking plate and fibular allograft augmentation in unstable fractures of proximal humerus. Injury. 2012;1939–42.
16.
Rollo G, Rotini R, Pichierri P, Giaracuni M, Stasi A, Macchiarola L, et al. Grafting and fixation of proximal humeral aseptic non union: a prospective case series. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2017;298–304.
17.
Longxiang S, Wei Z, Qiuke W, Yunfeng C. Establishment of a three-dimensional finite element model and biomechanical analysis of three different internal fixation methods for humeral greater tuberosity fracture. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2018;3245–54.
18.
Schumaier A, Grawe B. Proximal Humerus Fractures: Evaluation and Management in the Elderly Patient. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2018;2151458517750516.
19.
Mcmillan T, Johnstone A. Primary screw perforation or subsequent screw cut-out following proximal humerus fracture fixation using locking plates: a review of causative factors and proposed solutions. Int Orthop. 2018;1935–42.
20.
Arroyo-Sánchez C, Abril-Gaona C, Cardozo R, D. Osteosynthesis with locking plate and minimally invasive technique for proximal humeral fractures. Acta Ortop Mex. 2017;18–23.
21.
Bogdan Y, Gausden E, Zbeda R, Helfet D, Lorich D, Wellman D. An alternative technique for greater tuberosity fractures: use of the mesh plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;1067–70.
22.
Goch A, Konda C, Leucht S, Egol P, K. Operative repair of proximal humerus fractures in septuagenarians and octogenarians: Does chronologic age matter? J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017;50–3.
23.
Mcphillamy A, Gurnea T, Moody A, Kurnik C, Lu M. The clinical and economic impact of generic locking plate utilization at a Level II Trauma Center. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;(Suppl 5):32–6.
24.
Steinhaus M, Dare D, Gulotta L. Displaced proximal humerus fractures: is a sling as good as a plate? HSS. 2016;287–90.
25.
Jawa A, Burnikel D. Treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2016;
26.
Kathrein S, Joeris A, Kralinger F, Blauth M, Goldhahn J. Significant differences between local reporting and central assessment of radiographic complications in a prospective, multicenter study about locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;336–9.
27.
Panagopoulos A, Tatani I, Ntourantonis D, Seferlis I, Kouzelis A, Tyllianakis M. Least possible fixation techniques of 4-part valgus impacted fractures of the proximal humerus: a systematic review. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2016;6211.
28.
Dilisio M, Nowinski R, Hatzidakis A, Fehringer E. Intramedullary nailing of the proximal humerus: evolution, technique, and results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;130–8.
29.
Capriccioso C, Zuckerman J, Egol K. Initial varus displacement of proximal humerus fractures results in similar function but higher complication rates. Injury. 2016;909–13.
30.
Kathrein S, Joeris A, Kralinger F, Blauth M, Goldhahn J. Significant differences between local reporting and central assessment of radiological complications in a prospective, multicenter study about locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;
31.
Song J, Deng X, Wang Y, Wang X, Li X, Yu B. Operative vs. nonoperative treatment for comminuted proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a current meta-analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;345–53.
32.
Mao F, Zhang D, Peng X, Liao Y. Comparison of surgical versus non-surgical treatment of displaced 3-and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a meta-analysis. J Invest Surg. 2015;215–24.
33.
Cruickshank D, Lefaivre K, Johal H, Macintyre N, Sprague S, Scott T, et al. A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;175.
34.
Meller R, Hawi N, Schmiddem U, Millett P, Petri M, Krettek C. Posttraumatic nonunions and malunions of the proximal humerus. Possibilities and limitations of corrective osteotomy. Unfallchirurg. 2015;577–85.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
