Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society (대한견·주관절의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical and Radiologic Results Comparing the Periarticular Proximal Humerus Locking Plate and Polarus Nail for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures

  • Min, Young-Kyoung (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Jun (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Gwak, Heui-Chul (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Sang-Woo (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Suh, Kuen-Tak (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.06.23
  • Accepted : 2017.08.23
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of the single calcar screw plate and Polarus nail techniques for the treatment of the proximal humerus fractures. Methods: Seventy-two patients diagnosed with displaced proximal humerus fracture were enrolled for the study. Of these, 50 patients underwent the locking plate surgery with a single calcar screw (plate group), whereas 22 patients underwent the Polarus nail surgery (nail group). The plate group was further divided into plate 1 group (with medial support), and plate 2 group (without medial support). The radiological and functional results of both groups were compared to the nail group. Results: The ${\alpha}$ angle 1 year after surgery was significantly different between plate 1 and plate 2, and plate 2 and nail groups (p=0.041, p=0.043, respectively). The ratio that does not satisfy the reference value of ${\gamma}$ angle was 2.8% in plate 1, 7.1% in plate 2 and 22.7% in nail group (p=0.007); there was a significant difference between plate 1 and nail group, and plate 2 and nail group (p=0.014, p=0.033, respectively). Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in the clinical results between locking plate and Polarus nail. However, in the plate 2 group and nail group, the rate of failure to maintain reduction during the 1-year period after surgery was statistically and significantly higher than the plate 1 group (level of evidence: level IV, case series, treatment study).

Keywords

References

  1. Baron JA, Karagas M, Barrett J, et al. Basic epidemiology of fractures of the upper and lower limb among Americans over 65 years of age. Epidemiology. 1996;7(6):612-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199611000-00008
  2. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Jarvinen M, Vuori I. Osteoporotic fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly Finnish persons: sharp increase in 1970-1998 and alarming projections for the new millennium. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(5):465-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317381144
  3. Liew AS, Johnson JA, Patterson SD, King GJ, Chess DG. Effect of screw placement on fixation in the humeral head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):423-6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2000.107089
  4. Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. Part I. Classification and evaluation. By Charles S. Neer, I, 1970. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(223):3-10.
  5. Lill H, Hepp P, Korner J, et al. Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(2-3):74-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-002-0465-9
  6. Fankhauser F, Boldin C, Schippinger G, Haunschmid C, Szyszkowitz R. A new locking plate for unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(430):176-81.
  7. Seide K, Triebe J, Faschingbauer M, et al. Locked vs. unlocked plate osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22(2):176-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.009
  8. Hinds RM, Garner MR, Tran WH, Lazaro LE, Dines JS, Lorich DG. Geriatric proximal humeral fracture patients show similar clinical outcomes to non-geriatric patients after osteosynthesis with endosteal fibular strut allograft augmentation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(6):889-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.019
  9. Jones CB, Sietsema DL, Williams DK. Locked plating of proximal humeral fractures: is function affected by age, time, and fracture patterns? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(12):3307-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1935-6
  10. Adedapo AO, Ikpeme JO. The results of internal fixation of three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures with the Polarus nail. Injury. 2001;32(2):115-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(00)00154-6
  11. Agel J, Jones CB, Sanzone AG, Camuso M, Henley MB. Treatment of proximal humeral fractures with Polarus nail fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(2):191-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2003.12.005
  12. Kitson J, Booth G, Day R. A biomechanical comparison of locking plate and locking nail implants used for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3):362-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.019
  13. Molster A, Gjerdet NR, Strand RM, Hole RM, Hove LM. Intramedullary nailing in humeral shaft fractures. Mechanical behavior in vitro after osteosynthesis with three different intramedullary nails. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121(10):554-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020100304
  14. Yoon RS, Dziadosz D, Porter DA, Frank MA, Smith WR, Liporace FA. A comprehensive update on current fixation options for two-part proximal humerus fractures: a biomechanical investigation. Injury. 2014;45(3):510-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.08.024
  15. Boudard G, Pomares G, Milin L, et al. Locking plate fixation versus antegrade nailing of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in patients without osteoporosis. Comparative retrospective study of 63 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(8):917-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.09.021
  16. Gradl G, Dietze A, Kaab M, Hopfenmuller W, Mittlmeier T. Is locking nailing of humeral head fractures superior to locking plate fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(11):2986-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0916-5
  17. Konrad G, Audige L, Lambert S, Hertel R, Sudkamp NP. Similar outcomes for nail versus plate fixation of three-part proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):602-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2056-y
  18. Krivohlavek M, Lukas R, Taller S, Sram J. Use of angle-stable implants for proximal humeral fractures: prospective study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2008;75(3):212-20.
  19. Lekic N, Montero NM, Takemoto RC, Davidovitch RI, Egol KA. Treatment of two-part proximal humerus fractures: intramedullary nail compared to locked plating. HSS J. 2012;8(2):86-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-012-9274-z
  20. Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(3):185-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3180333094
  21. Paavolainen P, Bjorkenheim JM, Slatis P, Paukku P. Operative treatment of severe proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1983;54(3):374-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678308996587
  22. Poeze M, Lenssen AF, Van Empel JM, Verbruggen JP. Conservative management of proximal humeral fractures: can poor functional outcome be related to standard transscapular radiographic evaluation? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):273-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.07.066
  23. Bahrs C, Rolauffs B, Dietz K, Eingartner C, Weise K. Clinical and radiological evaluation of minimally displaced proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(5):673-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0975-9
  24. Duparc F, Huten D. Conservative treatment of fractures of the upper end of the humerus. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1998;84 Suppl 1:121-89.
  25. Lescheid J, Zdero R, Shah S, Kuzyk PR, Schemitsch EH. The biomechanics of locked plating for repairing proximal humerus fractures with or without medial cortical support. J Trauma. 2010;69(5):1235-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181beed96
  26. Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P. Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):837-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.06.004
  27. Hessmann MH, Hansen WS, Krummenauer F, Pol TF, Rommens P. Locked plate fixation and intramedullary nailing for proximal humerus fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. J Trauma. 2005;58(6):1194-201. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TA.0000170400.68994.AB
  28. Charalambous CP, Siddique I, Valluripalli K, et al. Proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(3):205-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0256-9
  29. Lin J. Effectiveness of locked nailing for displaced three-part proximal humeral fractures. J Trauma. 2006;61(2):363-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000224148.73016.30
  30. Zhang L, Zheng J, Wang W, et al. The clinical benefit of medial support screws in locking plating of proximal humerus fractures: a prospective randomized study. Int Orthop. 2011;35(11):1655-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1227-5

Cited by

  1. Whatever Your Preference Is for the Treatment of the Proximal Humeral Fracture vol.20, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2017.20.4.181