Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconstruction techniques in comparison for reverse shoulder trauma prosthesis in the elderly: a follow-up between 2 and 4 years

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of a bone graft technique called bCAT (bone Collar And Tie), in which the fractured humeral head is modelled into a collar shape versus puzzle piece reconstruction (PPR) in elderly patients with complex proximal humeral fractures.

Materials and methods

Between 2005 and 2011, we have performed 46 reverse shoulder prosthesis in patients with a mean age of 73.8 years (range 69–95) affected by shoulder complex fracture. A Delta CTA Depuy prosthesis was used in two patients, and a Lima SMR modular shoulder system in 44. To obtain a homogeneous group we compared the cases in which was used the same prosthesis with a similar follow-up. In a series of patients, we reconstructed tuberosities with the PPR technique (group A), while in another series we used the bCAT technique (group B).

Results

The results were evaluated in 20 of group A and 20 of group B patients (mean clinical and radiological follow-up: 45.8 months). Average range of motion in group A was 111° anterior elevation, 90° abduction, 16° extrarotation and intrarotation till the sacral bone. The corresponding values in group B were 150°, 110°, 44° and L4. The mean absolute and age-adjusted Constant-Murley score were 55 and 67.85 %, respectively, in group A and 70.8 and 83.85 % in group B. Tuberosity resorption occurred in 40 % of group A versus 15 % in group B.

Conclusion

The PPR and the bCAT techniques promoted the healing and correct positioning of the tuberosities thereby resulting in good functioning of the residual cuff. The bCAT technique resulted in better clinical function particularly in abduction and extrarotation and in terms of radiological outcome of reverse prosthesis surgery.

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. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anjum SN, Butt MS (2005) Treatment of comminuted proximal humerus fractures with shoulder hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients. Acta Orthop Belg 71:388–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antuna SA Sperling J.WCofield RH (2008) Shoulder Hemiartroplasty for acute fracture of the proximal humerus: a minimum five-years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17:202–209

  3. Bufquin T, Hersan A, Hubert L et al (2007) 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 89:516–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Compito CA, Self EB, Bigliani LU (1994) Arthroplasty and acute shoulder trauma. Reasons for success and failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 307:27–36

  5. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B (2006) Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 37:691–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Demirhan M, Kilicoglu O, Altinel L et al (2003) Prognostic factors in prosthetic replacement for acute proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 17:181–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P et al (2009) Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:612–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hertel R (2005) Fractures of the proximal humerus in osteoporotic bone. Osteoporosis Int 16:S65–S72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T et al (2008) Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1407–1413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klein M, Juschka M, Hinkenjann B et al (2008) Treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly patients with Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop Trauma 22:698–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S et al (2006) Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Russo R, Vernaglia Lombardi L, Cautiero F, Giudice G, Ciccarelli M (2008) Medial reconstruction technique in the treatment of complex fractures of humeral proximal epiphysis with SMR prosthetic modular system. Chir Organi Mov 91:117–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Russo R, Visconti V, Vernaglia Lombardi L, Ciccarelli M, Giudice G (2008) The block-bridge system: a new concept and surgical technique to reconstruct articular surfaces and tuberosities in complex proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D et al (2008) Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17:42–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Neer CS (1970) 2nd. Displaced proximal humerus fractures: iI. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52(6):1090–1103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rockwood CA Jr, Matsen FA III (1998) The shoulder. Philadelphia: Saunders Company. ISBN No. 978-1-4160-3427-8

  17. Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L et al (2002) Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:401–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith AM, Mardones RM, Sperling JW et al (2007) Early complications of operatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:14–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Farshad M, Gerber C (2011) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the most to the least common complication. Int Orthop 34:1075–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gallinet D, Clappaz P, Garbuio P et al (2009) Three or four parts complex proximal humerus fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus reverse prosthesis: a comparative study of 40 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 95:48–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Young SW, Segal BS, Turner PC et al (2010) Comparison of functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty in the primary treatment of acute proximal humerus fracture. ANZ J Surg. 80:789–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kontakis G, Tosounidis T, Galanakis I et al (2008) Prosthetic replacement for proximal humeral fractures. Injury 39:1345–1358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith CD, Guyver P, Bunker TD (2012) Indications for reverse shoulder replacement: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:577–583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brems JJ (2002) Shoulder arthroplasty in the face of acute fracture: puzzle pieces. J Arthroplasty 17:32–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J et al (2007) Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: orthopaedic trauma association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21(10 Suppl):S1–S133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Constant CR, Murley AHG (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Liotard JP, Edwards TB, Padey A et al (2003) Hydrotherapy rehabilitation after shoulder surgery. Tech Shoulder Elbow 4:44–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin TG, Iannotti JP (2008) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures and failed management after proximal humeral fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 39:451–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gerber C, Pennington SD, Nyffeler RW (2009) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:284–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ (2010) The reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:535–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ (2011) Long term functional outcome following reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the elderly. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 97:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gallinet D, Adam A, Gasse N et al (2013) Improvement in shoulder rotation in complex shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Russo R, Ciccarelli M, Vernaglia Lombardi L, Cautiero F (2009) Bony necktie: a biologic solution to restore tuberosity position (cuff tension) in reverse shoulder trauma prostheses. E-Poster at SECEC Congress, Madrid

  34. Ciccarelli M, Russo R, DellaRotonda G, Cautiero F (2013) Bony necktie: a biologic solution to restore tuberosity position (cuff tension) in reverse shoulder trauma prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(S2):202

    Google Scholar 

  35. Levy JC, Badman B (2011) Reverse shoulder prosthesis for acute four-part fracture: tuberosity fixation using a horseshoe graft. J Orthop Trauma 25:318–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frankle MA, Ondrovic LE, Markee BA et al (2002) Stability of tuberosity reattachment in proximal humeral hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:413–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Jean Ann Gilder (Scientific Communication srl., Naples, Italy) for revising and editing the text.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, Ospedale dei Pellegrini, Via Portamedina 41, 80134, Naples, Italy

    Raffaele Russo & Fabio Cautiero

  2. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Unit, Ospedale Santa, Maria, Borgo Val di Taro, PR, Italy

    Alberto Fontanarosa

  3. Reading Shoulder Unit, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK

    Giuseppe della Rotonda

  4. Department of Movement Sciences and Wellness, Parthenope University of Naples, Naples, Italy

    Giuliana Valerio

Authors
  1. Raffaele Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabio Cautiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alberto Fontanarosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppe della Rotonda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuliana Valerio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Cautiero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Russo, R., Cautiero, F., Fontanarosa, A. et al. Reconstruction techniques in comparison for reverse shoulder trauma prosthesis in the elderly: a follow-up between 2 and 4 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 905–912 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2221-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2221-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation