Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional improvement is sustained following anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture sequelae: a registry-based analysis

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

Abstract

Introduction

Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture sequelae is known to provide significant patient improvement, yet this outcome varies with time, prosthesis type, and fracture sequelae. We outline the expected course of postoperative shoulder pain and function in patients with anatomical (ASA) or reverse (RSA) shoulder arthroplasty following different fracture sequelae.

Materials and methods

Of 111 consecutive patients from our local shoulder arthroplasty registry, 32 underwent ASA for Boileau type 1 sequelae and 77 RSA patients were identified with Boileau types I, III, and IV. By 5 year post-surgery, there were 72 patients available. All patients underwent standardised ASA or RSA procedures with anatomical (Promos Standard; Lima SMR™; Arthrex Eclipse™; Univers™ II) or reverse prostheses (Promos Reverse®; Lima SMR™ Reverse; Univers Revers™; Aequalis® Reversed). Range of motion, Constant–Murley, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores were compared at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postoperatively. We used generalised linear mixed models or random-effects ordered logistic regression to investigate postoperative changes of outcome parameters from baseline to follow-up time points for each group as well as for group comparisons.

Results

Range of motion and clinical scores improved until 24 months postoperatively and did not deteriorate thereafter, except for internal rotation of Boileau type III and IV patients and external rotation of RSA patients with type I and IV sequelae. At all follow-ups, ASA patients with Boileau type I sequelae had significantly better internal and external rotation versus patients with RSA and/or other Boileau types (p < 0.001), while Constant, DASH, and SPADI scores were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion

In humeral fracture sequelae, ASA and RSA lead to sustained clinical improvements. Surgeons may primarily consider implantation of ASA in type I sequelae.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J (2006) Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000194672.79634.78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Keene JS, Huizenga RE, Engber WD, Rogers SC (1983) Proximal humeral fractures: a correlation of residual deformity with long-term function. Orthopedics 6:173–178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Capriccioso CE, Zuckerman JD, Egol KA (2016) Initial varus displacement of proximal humerus fractures results in similar function but higher complication rates. Injury 47:909–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.01.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beeres FJP, Hallensleben NDL, Rhemrev SJ, Goslings JC, Oehme F, Meylaerts SAG, Babst R, Schep NWL (2017) Plate fixation of the proximal humerus: an international multicentre comparative study of postoperative complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1685–1692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2790-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pinkas D, Wanich TS, DePalma AA, Gruson KI (2014) Management of malunion of the proximal humerus: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22:491–502. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-22-08-491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Benegas E, Zoppi Filho A, Ferreira Filho AA, Ferreira Neto AA, Negri JH, Prada FS, Zumiotti AV (2007) Surgical treatment of varus malunion of the proximal humerus with valgus osteotomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.04.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ladermann A, Denard PJ, Burkhart SS (2012) Arthroscopic management of proximal humerus malunion with tuberoplasty and rotator cuff retensioning. Arthroscopy 28:1220–1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.12.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield RH (2002) Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral malunions: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:122–129. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2002.120913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mansat P, Guity MR, Bellumore Y, Mansat M (2004) Shoulder arthroplasty for late sequelae of proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Holton J, Yousri T, Arealis G, Levy O (2017) The role of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in management of proximal humerus fractures with fracture sequelae: a systematic review of the literature. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 9:6977. https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2017.6977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mansat P, Bonnevialle N (2015) Treatment of fracture sequelae of the proximal humerus: anatomical vs reverse shoulder prosthesis. Int Orthop 39:349–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2651-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boileau P, Chuinard C, Le Huec JC, Walch G, Trojani C (2006) Proximal humerus fracture sequelae: impact of a new radiographic classification on arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 442:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000195679.87258.6e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boileau P, Trojani C, Walch G, Krishnan SG, Romeo A, Sinnerton R (2001) Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:299–308

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jacobson JA, Duquin TR, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2014) Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus malunions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:1232–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pape G, Zeifang F, Bruckner T, Raiss P, Rickert M, Loew M (2010) Humeral surface replacement for the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Raiss P, Edwards TB, Collin P, Bruckner T, Zeifang F, Loew M, Boileau P, Walch G (2016) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for malunions of the proximal part of the humerus (Type-4 fracture sequelae). J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:893–899. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raiss P, Edwards TB, da Silva MR, Bruckner T, Loew M, Walch G (2014) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of nonunions of the surgical neck of the proximal part of the humerus (type-3 fracture sequelae). J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:2070–2076. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schliemann B, Theisen C, Kösters C, Raschke MJ, Weimann A (2017) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for type I fracture sequelae after internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1677–1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2789-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Raiss P, Alami G, Bruckner T, Magosch P, Habermeyer P, Boileau P, Walch G (2018) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for type 1 sequelae of a fracture of the proximal humerus. Bone Joint J 100-B:318–323. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B3.BJJ-2017-0947.R1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alentorn-Geli E, Guirro P, Santana F, Torrens C (2014) Treatment of fracture sequelae of the proximal humerus: comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:1545–1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2074-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kilic M, Berth A, Blatter G, Fuhrmann U, Gebhardt K, Rott O, Zenz P, Irlenbusch U (2010) Anatomic and reverse shoulder prostheses in fracture sequelae of the humeral head. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 44:417–425. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2010.2272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P, Leguilloux P, Van Driessche S (2003) Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:550–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(03)00211-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (2005) Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Angst F, Goldhahn J, Pap G, Mannion AF, Roach KE, Siebertz D, Drerup S, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the German Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford) 46:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel040

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P (2008) A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Royston P, White IR (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): implementation in Stata. J Stat Softw 45:1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Collin P, Matsukawa T, Denard PJ, Gain S, Ladermann A (2017) Pre-operative factors influence the recovery of range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 41:2135–2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3573-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Simovitch RW, Friedman RJ, Cheung EV, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD, Roche C (2017) Rate of improvement in clinical outcomes with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:1801–1811. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Triplet JJ, Everding NG, Levy JC, Moor MA (2015) Functional internal rotation after shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24:867–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Boileau P, Neyton L (2008) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in proximal humerus fracture sequelae. Constrained or nonconstrained prosthesis? In: Boileau G, Walch G, Molé D, Favard L, Lévigne C, Sirveaux F, Kempf JF (eds) Shoulder concepts 2008—proximal humeral fractures and fracture sequelae. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, pp 265–269

    Google Scholar 

  32. Clark JC, Ritchie J, Song FS, Kissenberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Hart ND, Hawkins RJ (2012) Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hamilton MA, Diep P, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Routman H (2015) Effect of reverse shoulder design philosophy on muscle moment arms. J Orthop Res 33:605–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ladermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P, Farron A, Deransart P, Terrier A, Ston J, Walch G (2015) Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39:2205–2213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2984-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Virani NA, Cabezas A, Gutierrez S, Santoni BG, Otto R, Frankle M (2013) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty components and surgical techniques that restore glenohumeral motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Duquin TR, Jacobson JA, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2012) Unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral nonunions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1610–1617. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01975

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Wakefield AE (2003) Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1215–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Levy JC, Everding NG, Gil CC Jr, Stephens S, Giveans MR (2014) Speed of recovery after shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:1872–1881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.04.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Melissa Wilhelmi Ph.D., medical writer at the Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland, for manuscript editing.

Funding

Support for this research was provided by Schulthess Clinic.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Laurent Audigé and Lukas Graf have contributed equally to this manuscript and share first co-authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Development Department, Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Laurent Audigé, Lukas Graf & Andreas M. Müller

  2. Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Department, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland

    Laurent Audigé, Matthias Flury & Marco M. Schneider

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Laurent Audigé, Lukas Graf & Andreas M. Müller

  4. In Motion, Centre for Orthopaedic and Neurosurgery, Wallisellen, Switzerland

    Matthias Flury

  5. University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany

    Marco M. Schneider

Authors
  1. Laurent Audigé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukas Graf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Flury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco M. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas M. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurent Audigé.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee Approval was granted by the Cantonal Ethics Committee of Zurich, Stampfenbachstrasse 121/Postfach, 8090 Zurich, Switzerland. Approval for analyses of the local clinical registry (KEK-ZH Nr. 2014-0483: clinical and subjective long-term outcome after an implantation of a shoulder arthroplasty) was granted on 23.01.2015.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 67 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 70 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Audigé, L., Graf, L., Flury, M. et al. Functional improvement is sustained following anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture sequelae: a registry-based analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139, 1561–1569 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03224-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03224-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation