Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

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

DOI QR Code

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

  • Kim, Hyojune (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Eulji University Hospital) ;
  • Song, Si-Jung (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Jeon, In-Ho (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Koh, Kyoung Hwan (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2021.07.01
  • Accepted : 2021.09.05
  • Published : 2022.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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 tomography 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus: epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:799-804. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.83B6.0830799
  2. Handoll HH, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (11):CD000434.
  3. Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, et al. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313:1037-47. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1629
  4. Pawaskar AC, Lee KW, Kim JM, et al. Locking plate for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly population: serial change of neck shaft angle. Clin Orthop Surg 2012;4:209-15. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2012.4.3.209
  5. Calori GM, Colombo M, Bucci MS, et al. Complications in proximal humeral fractures. Injury 2016;47 Suppl 4:S54-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.07.039
  6. Boesmueller S, Wech M, Gregori M, et al. Risk factors for humeral head necrosis and non-union after plating in proximal humeral fractures. Injury 2016;47:350-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.001
  7. Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A, Hrobjartsson A. Diagnosing displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a review of observer studies. Int Orthop 2009;33:323-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0591-2
  8. Papakonstantinou MK, Hart MJ, Farrugia R, et al. Interobserver agreement of Neer and AO classifications for proximal humeral fractures. ANZ J Surg 2016;86:280-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13451
  9. Bruinsma WE, Guitton TG, Warner JJ, Ring D; Science of Variation Group. Interobserver reliability of classification and characterization of proximal humeral fractures: a comparison of two and three-dimensional CT. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1600-4. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00586
  10. Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Cuomo F, Schoenberg N. The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures: an assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:1745-50. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199312000-00002
  11. Brorson S, Olsen BS, Frich LH, et al. Surgeons agree more on treatment recommendations than on classification of proximal humeral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012;13:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-114
  12. Berkes MB, Dines JS, Little MT, et al. The impact of three-dimensional CT imaging on intraobserver and interobserver reliability of proximal humeral fracture classifications and treatment recommendations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1281-6. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00199
  13. Foroohar A, Tosti R, Richmond JM, Gaughan JP, Ilyas AM. Classification and treatment of proximal humerus fractures: inter-observer reliability and agreement across imaging modalities and experience. J Orthop Surg Res 2011;6:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-38
  14. Fleiss JL, Cuzick J. The reliability of dichotomous judgments: unequal numbers of judges per subject. Appl Psychol Meas 1979;3:537-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167900300410
  15. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
  16. Gradl G, Knobe M, Pape HC, Neuhaus PV, Ring D, Guitton T. Decision making in displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: fracture or surgeon based. Int Orthop 2015;39:329-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2630-5
  17. Sjoden GO, Movin T, Guntner P, et al. Poor reproducibility of classification of proximal humeral fractures: additional CT of minor value. Acta Orthop Scand 1997;68:239-42. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679708996692
  18. Mutch J, Laflamme GY, Hagemeister N, Cikes A, Rouleau DM. A new morphological classification for greater tuberosity fractures of the proximal humerus: validation and clinical implications. Bone Joint J 2014;96:646-51. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B5.32362
  19. Sukthankar AV, Leonello DT, Hertel RW, Ding GS, Sandow MJ. A comprehensive classification of proximal humeral fractures: HGLS system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:e1-6.
  20. Bufquin T, Hersan A, Hubert L, Massin P. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly: a prospective review of 43 cases with a short-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:516-20.
  21. Chalmers PN, Slikker W 3rd, Mall NA, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fracture: comparison to open reduction-internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:197-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.044
  22. Cvetanovich GL, Chalmers PN, Verma NN, Nicholson GP, Romeo AA. Open reduction internal fixation has fewer short-term complications than shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:624-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.011
  23. Gomberawalla MM, Miller BS, Coale RM, Bedi A, Gagnier JJ. Meta-analysis of joint preservation versus arthroplasty for the treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus. Injury 2013;44:1532-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.030
  24. Okike K, Lee OC, Makanji H, Harris MB, Vrahas MS. Factors associated with the decision for operative versus non-operative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. Injury 2013;44:448-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.09.002
  25. Koval KJ, Gallagher MA, Marsicano JG, Cuomo F, McShinawy A, Zuckerman JD. Functional outcome after minimally displaced fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:203-7. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199702000-00006
  26. Elidrissi M, Bensaad S, Shimi M, Elibrahimi A, Elmrini A. Surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures anatomical plate versus palm tree pinning (26 cases). Chir Main 2013;32:25-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.main.2012.12.001
  27. Zhu Y, Lu Y, Shen J, Zhang J, Jiang C. Locking intramedullary nails and locking plates in the treatment of two-part proximal humeral surgical neck fractures: a prospective randomized trial with a minimum of three years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:159-68. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00155
  28. 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;48:1175-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.027
  29. Agarwal S, Rana A, Sharma RK. Functional outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty in three or four part proximal humerus fracture: a short term followup. Indian J Orthop 2016;50:590-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.193481
  30. Liao W, Zhang H, Li Z, Li J. Is arthroscopic technique superior to open reduction internal fixation in the treatment of isolated displaced greater tuberosity fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:1269-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4663-5