Proximal Humeral Fractures: Nonoperative Versus Operative Treatment

Authors

1 Research Fellow, Sint Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis Amsterdam, PhD Research Fellow Orthopedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA

2 Research Fellow, Department of Surgery, Sint Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3 Resident, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam Orthopedic Residency Program, PhD Research Fellow, Orthotrauma Research Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4 Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Orthopedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA

5 Resident, Sint Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam Orthopedic Residency Program, Postdoc Research Fellow, Orthotrauma Research Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands

6 Chief Department of General Surgery, Sint Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis Amsterdam, Secretariaat C4, Jan Tooropstraat 164, 1061 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

10.5812/atr.37423

Abstract

Background
Management of displaced proximal humeral fractures is subject of ongoing debate.


Objectives
We aimed to review our results of operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures compared to age-, sex, and fracture-type controlled conservative treatment. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference in upper-extremity specific disability between patients treated with operative fixation and patients treated nonoperatively after displaced proximal humeral fracture. Our secondary null hypotheses were that there were no differences in pain intensity, satisfaction and physical function.


Methods
Thirty-three patients treated with operative fixation were enrolled and randomly matched with 33 patients treated nonoperatively according to age (within 5 years), sex, ASA-score, Neer fracture type and mechanism of injury. The patients were evaluated using the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scale, the constant score, short form (SF)-36 health survey, CESD, the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and pain intensity and satisfaction questionnaires.


Results
At follow-up, the nonoperatively treated patients had better functional outcomes than the operatively treated patients. Nonoperatively treated patients also scored better on pain intensity and satisfaction. There were no significant differences in CESD, PCS, and SF-36 physical- and mental health summary scores between cohorts.


Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that operative treatment might, on average, be detrimental to patients with proximal humeral fractures compared to natural healing. It will be a key to identify patients who will benefit from surgery.

Keywords

References

1. Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ. Interventions for treating proximal humeral
fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(12):CD000434.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub2. [PubMed: 21154345].
2. Zyto K. Non-operative treatment of comminuted fractures of the
proximal humerus in elderly patients. Injury. 1998;29(5):349–52.
[PubMed: 9813677].
3. Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ, Rollins KE. Interventions for treating
proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2012;12:CD000434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub3. [PubMed:
23235575].
4. Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, Jefferson L, Keding A, Martin BC, 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. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.1629. [PubMed:
25756440].
5. Guy P, Slobogean GP, McCormack RG. Treatment preferences for
displaced three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop
Trauma. 2010;24(4):250–4. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181bdc46a.
[PubMed: 20335760].
6. Fialka C, Stampfl P, Arbes S, Reuter P, Oberleitner G, Vécsei V. Primary
hemiarthroplasty in four-part fractures of the proximal humerus:
randomized trial of two different implant systems. J Shoulder Elbow
Surg. 2008;17(2):210–5.
7. Hirschmann MT, Fallegger B, Amsler F, Regazzoni P, Gross T. Clinical
longer-term results after internal fixation of proximal humerus
fractures with a locking compression plate (PHILOS). J Orthop Trauma.
2011;25(5):286–93.
8. Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J. Hemiarthroplasty
versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 4-part proximal
humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(7):1025–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.016.
[PubMed: 21783385].
9. Hodgson S. Proximal humerus fracture rehabilitation. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 2006;442:131–8. [PubMed: 16394751].
10. Fjalestad T, Hole MO, Jorgensen JJ, Stromsoe K, Kristiansen IS. Health
and cost consequences of surgical versus conservative treatment for
a comminuted proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients. Injury.
2010;41(6):599–605. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2009.10.056. [PubMed:
19945102].
11. Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J. Internal fixation
versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part proximal humeral
fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder
Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):747–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.12.018. [PubMed:
21435907].
12. Neer C2. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification
and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077–89. [PubMed:
5455339].
13. Constant CR. [Assessment of shoulder function]. Orthopade.
1991;20(5):289–94. [PubMed: 1745538].
14. Fialka C, Oberleitner G, Stampfl P, Brannath W, Hexel M, Vecsei V. Modification
of the Constant-Murley shoulder score-introduction of the
individual relative Constant score Individual shoulder assessment.
Injury. 2005;36(10):1159–65. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.12.023. [PubMed:
16214462].
15. Gunther CM, Burger A, Rickert M, Crispin A, Schulz CU. Grip
strength in healthy caucasian adults: reference values. J Hand Surg
Am. 2008;33(4):558–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.01.008. [PubMed:
18406961].
16. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity
outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder
and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group
(UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L. [PubMed: 8773720].
17. Cuijpers P, Smit F, Voordouw I, Kramer J. Outcome of cognitive behaviour
therapy for minor depression in routine practice. Psychol Psychother.
2005;78(Pt 2):179–88. doi: 10.1348/147608304X22391. [PubMed:
16004697].
18. Osman A, Barrios FX, Gutierrez PM, Kopper BA, Merrifield T,
Grittmann L. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: further psychometric
evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med. 2000;23(4):351–65.
[PubMed: 10984864].
19. Severeijns R, van den Hout MA, Vlaeyen JW, Picavet HS. Pain catastrophizing
and general health status in a large Dutch community sample.
Pain. 2002;99(1-2):367–76. [PubMed: 12237216].
20. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research
in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385–401.
21. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman
R, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language
version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic
disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1055–68. [PubMed:
9817123].
22. Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P,
et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus
fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective
multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(3):163–72. doi:
10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181920e5b. [PubMed: 19516088].
23. Sudkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kaab M, et al. Open reduction
and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use
of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter,
observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1320–8.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00006. [PubMed: 19487508].
24. Konrad G, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kaab M, et al. Open
reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with
use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Surgical technique. J Bone
Joint Surg Am. 2010;92 Suppl 1 Pt 1:85–95. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01462.
[PubMed: 20194347].
Archives of Trauma Research
Volume 6, Issue 1
January 2017
Pages 1-8

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics