DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis via a Deltoid-splitting Approach with Strut Allograft for the Treatment of Displaced 3- or 4-part Proximal Humeral Fractures

  • Noh, Young-Min (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dong-A University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Dong Ryul (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dong-A University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Chul-Hong (Department of Shoulder Clinic, Mirae Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Seung Yup (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dong-A University Hospital)
  • Received : 2018.05.28
  • Accepted : 2018.08.27
  • Published : 2018.12.01

Abstract

Background: This study introduces a surgical technique with good clinical outcome useful in the treatment of osteoporotic displaced 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures. Methods: From May 2014 to February 2016, 16 patients with displaced 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures were treated by application of a locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft via a deltoid splitting approach with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The allograft was inserted through a fractured gap of the greater tuberosity to support the humeral head and then fixed by a locking plate with meticulous soft tissue dissection to protect the axillary nerve. Surgical outcomes were evaluated by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, radiological imaging, and clinical examination. Fixation failure on radiographs was defined as a >$5^{\circ}$ loss of neck shaft angle (NSA) compared to that on an immediate postoperative radiograph. Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the humeral head was also evaluated. Results: In all cases, complete union was achieved. The ASES and VAS scores were improved to $85.4{\pm}2.1$ and $3.2{\pm}1.3$, respectively. Twelve patients (75.0%) had greater than a $5^{\circ}$ change in NSA; the average NSA change was $3.8^{\circ}$. Five patients (31.3%) had unsatisfactory ranges of motion exhibiting a <$100^{\circ}$ active forward flexion. No axillary nerve injuries or AVN were observed at the last follow-up. One patient was converted to reverse total arthroplasty due to severe pain and functional deficit. Conclusions: Minimally invasive fixation via a locking compression plate and an endosteal fibula strut allograft in Neer classification 3-or 4-part fractures with severe osteoporosis in elderly patients can achieve good clinical results.

Keywords

GJGJB6_2018_v21n4_220_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Deltoid splitting approach using a minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis technique. (A) A photograph at a distance from the anterolateral border of the acromion to prevent axillary nerve injury. (B) Image of the initial deltoid splitting incision. (C) Image of the two separated incisions after internal fixation was completed. (D) A photograph after the skin suturing was finished.

GJGJB6_2018_v21n4_220_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. The sequence of surgical techniques we used. Use of the deltoid-splitting approach (two separate incisions). (A) Fibula strut allograft was inserted through the fracture gap of the greater tuberosity. (B) After allograft insertion, the remnant bone was cut off at its proximal aspect. (C, D) Fracture site was reduced and the locking plate was positioned with temporary K-wire fixation. (E) Ethibond suturing was used to anchor the rotator cuff muscles to the locking plate. (F) Postoperative anteroposterior plain radiograph of the right shoulder.

GJGJB6_2018_v21n4_220_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 4. A case of using our surgical technique. A 79-year-old woman whose bone mineral density score was -4.0 was injured in a pedestrian accident. (A) A plain radiograph shows a Neer classification 3-part proximal humeral fracture. (B, C) Three-dimensional computed tomography images show the same fracture. Using deltoid splitting incisions, a fibula strut allograft was inserted through the greater tuberosity fracture gap. (D, E) The locking plate was positioned with temporary K-wire fixation. (F) Definite fixation was accomplished. (G) The deltoid splitting incision and the fixated locking plate. (H) An anteroposterior view of the neck shaft angle (NSA) (132°).

GJGJB6_2018_v21n4_220_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 3. Paavolainen method. Using an anteroposterior radiograph, the humeral neck shaft angle was determined by examining the intersection of a line drawn on the central axis of the humeral shaft (line A) with line C drawn perpendicular to the anatomical neck (line B) of the humerus (normal range: 120°–140°).

GJGJB6_2018_v21n4_220_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. A case of the role of mechanical support of the strut allograft. A 68-year-old male patient underwent surgery using our minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis method. (A, B) Surgical outcome was radiologically satisfactory immediately after surgery. (C, D) Radiographs showing implant failure at the patient’s 3-month follow-up. However, bone union was finally obtained due to the mechanical supporting role of the fibula strut allograft buttress. (E, F) Images are radiographs after metal removal operation at the 12-month follow-up.

Table 1. Summary of Patient Characteristics

GJGJB6_2018_v21n4_220_t0001.png 이미지

References

  1. DePalma AF. The classic. Origin and comparative anatomy of the pectoral limb. Surgery of the shoulder. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1950:1-14. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(3):531-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0102-6
  2. Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S; PROFHER Trial Collaborators, et al. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(10):1037-47. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1629
  3. Beks RB, Ochen Y, Frima H, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(8):1526-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.009
  4. Murray IR, Amin AK, White TO, Robinson CM. Proximal humeral fractures: current concepts in classification, treatment and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):1-11.
  5. Maier D, Jaeger M, Izadpanah K, Strohm PC, Suedkamp NP. Proximal humeral fracture treatment in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(3):251-61. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01293
  6. Caforio M, Maniscalco P. The importance of early rehabilitation in proximal humeral fracture: a clinical trial of efficacy and safety of a new endomedullary nail. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(2):195-202. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-160732
  7. Park JY, An JW, Oh JH. Open intramedullary nailing with tension band and locking sutures for proximal humeral fracture: hot air balloon technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(5):594-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.001
  8. Wu CH, Ma CH, Yeh JJ, Yen CY, Yu SW, Tu YK. Locked plating for proximal humeral fractures: differences between the deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting approaches. J Trauma. 2011;71(5):1364-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31820d165d
  9. Shin YH, Lee YH, Choi HS, Kim MB, Pyo SH, Baek GH. A modified deltoid splitting approach with axillary nerve bundle mobilization for proximal humeral fracture fixation. Injury. 2017;48(11):2569-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.09.007
  10. Sohn HS, Shin SJ. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for proximal humeral fractures: clinical and radiologic outcomes according to fracture type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(9):1334-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.12.018
  11. Panchal K, Jeong JJ, Park SE, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unstable proximal humeral fractures treated with a locking plate and fibular strut allograft. Int Orthop. 2016;40(3):569-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2950-0
  12. 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
  13. Mehta S, Chin M, Sanville J, Namdari S, Hast MW. Calcar screw position in proximal humerus fracture fixation: don't miss high! Injury. 2018;49(3):624-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.02.007
  14. 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
  15. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:87-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000194672.79634.78
  16. Gerber C, Hersche O, Berberat C. The clinical relevance of posttraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(6):586-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90005-2
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T, Giannoudis P. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(11):1407-13.
  20. Esen E, Dogramaci Y, Gultekin S, et al. Factors affecting results of patients with humeral proximal end fractures undergoing primary hemiarthroplasty: a retrospective study in 42 patients. Injury. 2009;40(12):1336-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.06.019
  21. Hsiao CK, Tsai YJ, Yen CY, Lee CH, Yang TY, Tu YK. Intramedullary cortical bone strut improves the cyclic stability of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1421-8
  22. Bae JH, Oh JK, Chon CS, Oh CW, Hwang JH, Yoon YC. The biomechanical performance of locking plate fixation with intramedullary fibular strut graft augmentation in the treatment of unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(7):937-41. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00285
  23. Krappinger D, Bizzotto N, Riedmann S, Kammerlander C, Hengg C, Kralinger FS. Predicting failure after surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2011;42(11):1283-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.01.017
  24. Jung WB, Moon ES, Kim SK, Kovacevic D, Kim MS. Does medial support decrease major complications of unstable proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plate? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-102
  25. Gardner MJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Indirect medial reduction and strut support of proximal humerus fractures using an endosteal implant. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(3):195-200. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31815b3922
  26. Cha H, Park KB, Oh S, Jeong J. Treatment of comminuted proximal humeral fractures using locking plate with strut allograft. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(5):781-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.055
  27. Neviaser AS, Hettrich CM, Beamer BS, Dines JS, Lorich DG. Endosteal strut augment reduces complications associated with proximal humeral locking plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(12):3300-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1949-0
  28. Chow RM, Begum F, Beaupre LA, Carey JP, Adeeb S, Bouliane MJ. Proximal humeral fracture fixation: locking plate construct ${\pm}$ intramedullary fibular allograft. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):894-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.015
  29. Sohn HS, Jeon YS, Lee J, Shin SJ. Clinical comparison between open plating and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for displaced proximal humeral fractures: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Injury. 2017;48(6):1175-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.027