Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deltoid-split or Deltopectoral Approaches for the Treatment of Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures?

  • Clinical Research
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

A CORR Insights to this article was published on 24 January 2014

Abstract

Background

Proximal humeral fractures are mainly associated with osteoporosis and are becoming more common with the aging of our society. The best surgical approach for internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures is still being debated.

Questions/purposes

In this prospective randomized study, we aimed to investigate whether the deltoid-split approach is superior to the deltopectoral approach with regard to (1) complication rate; (2) shoulder function (Constant score); and (3) pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for internal fixation of displaced humeral fractures with a polyaxial locking plate.

Methods

We randomized 120 patients with proximal humeral fractures to receive one of these two approaches (60 patients for each approach). We prospectively documented demographic and perioperative data (sex, age, fracture type, hospital stay, operation time, and fluoroscopy time) as well as complications. Followup examinations were conducted at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, including radiological and clinical evaluations (Constant score, activities of daily living, and pain [VAS]). Baseline and perioperative data were comparable for both approaches. The sample size was chosen to provide 80% power, but it reached only 68% as a result of the loss of followups to detect a 10-point difference on the Constant score, which we considered the minimum clinically important difference.

Results

Complications or reoperations between the approaches were not different. Eight patients in the deltoid-split group (14%) needed surgical revisions compared with seven patients in the deltopectoral group (13%; p = 1.00). Deltoid-split and deltopectoral approaches showed similar Constant scores 12 months postoperatively (Deltoid-split 81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74–87 versus deltopectoral 73; 95% CI, 64–81; p = 0.13), and there were no differences between the groups in terms of pain at 1 year (deltoid-split 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2–1.4 versus deltopectoral 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7–3.2; p = 0.14). No learning-curve effects were noted; fluoroscopy use during surgery and function and pain scores during followups were similar among the first 30 patients and the next 30 patients treated in each group.

Conclusions

The treatment of proximal humeral fractures with a polyaxial locking plate is reliable using both approaches. For a definitive recommendation for one of these approaches, further studies with appropriate sample size are necessary.

Level of Evidence

Level II, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3A–C
Fig. 4A–F
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acklin YP, Stoffel K, Sommer C. A prospective analysis of the functional and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive plating in proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2013;44:456–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Björkenheim JM, Pajarinen J, Savolainen V. Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with a locking compression plate: a retrospective evaluation of 72 patients followed for a minimum of 1 year. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:741–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Constant CR. [Assessment of shoulder function] [in German]. Orthopade. 1991;20:289–294.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160–164.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:365–371.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DeStatis Statistisches Bundesamt. Hospital statistics. Wiesbaden 2011; Available at: http://www.gbe-bund.de/oowa921-install/servlet/oowa/aw92/dboowasys921.xwdevkit/xwd_init?gbe.isgbetol/xs_start_neu/&p_aid=i&p_aid=36857213&nummer=702&p_sprache=D&p_indsp=522&p_aid=9442669;Download. Accessed June 14, 2012.

  7. Duralde XA, Leddy LR. The results of ORIF of displaced unstable proximal humeral fractures using a locking plate. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:480–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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;430:176–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gardner MJ, Griffith MH, Dines JS, Briggs SM, Weiland AJ, Lorich DG. The extended anterolateral acromial approach allows minimally invasive access to the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;434:123–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ, Rollins KE. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD000434.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hepp P, Theopold J, Voigt C, Engel T, Josten C, Lill H. The surgical approach for locking plate osteosynthesis of displaced proximal humeral fractures influences the functional outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:21–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim SH, Szabo RM, Marder RA. Epidemiology of humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide emergency department sample, 2008. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64:407–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Königshausen M, Kübler L, Godry H, Citak M, Schildhauer TA, Seybold D. Clinical outcome and complications using a polyaxial locking plate in the treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures. A reliable system? Injury. 2012;43:223–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–186.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1077–1089.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Röderer G, Abouelsoud M, Gebhard F, Böckers TM, Kinzl L. Minimally invasive application of the non-contact-bridging (NCB) plate to the proximal humerus: an anatomical study. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:621–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Röderer G, Erhardt J, Kuster M, Vegt P, Bahrs C, Kinzl L, Gebhard F. Second generation locked plating of proximal humerus fractures—a prospective multicentre observational study. Int Orthop. 2011;35:425–432.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruchholtz S, Hauk C, Lewan U, Franz D, Kühne C, Zettl R. Minimally invasive polyaxial locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures: a prospective study. J Trauma. 2011;71:1737–1744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M, Luo C, Plecko M, Wendt K, Köstler W, Konrad G. 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;91:1320–1328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Voigt C, Geisler A, Hepp P, Schulz AP, Lill H. Are polyaxially locked screws advantageous in the plate osteosynthesis of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly? A prospective randomized clinical observational study. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:596–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Warriner AH, Patkar NM, Curtis JR, Delzell E, Gary L, Kilgore M, Saag K. Which fractures are most attributable to osteoporosis? J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:46–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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;71:1364–1370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Christian Kühne who did the surgery for some of the patients. In addition, we thank Daphne Asimenia Eschbach for valuable guidance in preparing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Giessen and Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35033, Marburg, Germany

    Benjamin Buecking MD, Juliane Mohr MD, Benjamin Bockmann, Ralph Zettl MD & Steffen Ruchholtz MD

Authors
  1. Benjamin Buecking MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliane Mohr MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Bockmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralph Zettl MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steffen Ruchholtz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Buecking MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Buecking, B., Mohr, J., Bockmann, B. et al. Deltoid-split or Deltopectoral Approaches for the Treatment of Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472, 1576–1585 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3415-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3415-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation