Advertisement

Der Unfallchirurg

, Volume 116, Issue 8, pp 691–697 | Cite as

Hemiprothese bei proximaler Humerusfraktur

  • M. Tauber
  • P. Magosch
  • P. Habermeyer
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Komplexe, mehrfragmentäre Humeruskopffrakturen mit avaskulärem Kalottenfragment und nicht rekonstruierbarer Fraktur stellen Indikationen zum endoprothetischen Kopfersatz dar. Speziell entwickelte Prothesendesigns erlauben durch Variabilität die anatomische Wiederherstellung des Rotationszentrums sowie die Einpassung und stabile Fixierung der Tubercula. Diese nehmen hinsichtlich funktionellem Ergebnis die Schlüsselposition ein und unterliegen allerdings häufig einem kompletten oder zumindest partiellen Resorptionsprozess mit konsekutiver Rotatorenmanschetteninsuffizienz. Bei hohem technischen Anspruch der Operation ist auf eine korrekte Prothesenimplantation zu achten. Die zu erwartenden funktionellen Ergebnisse sind ziemlich konstant bei einem Constant-Score zwischen 50 und 60 Punkten mit einem geringen Schmerzniveau. Bei älteren Patienten mit reduzierter Knochenqualität und damit verbundener erhöhter Rate tuberculaassoziierter Komplikationen muss alternativ bereits primär ein inverses Prothesendesign angedacht werden. Die Revisionsrate liegt insgesamt bei ca. 11 %.

Schlüsselwörter

Tubercularesorption Frakturdesign Kalottenfragment Rotationszentrum Rotatorenmanschetteninsuffizienz 

Humeral head replacement in acute proximal humerus fractures

Abstract

Complex proximal humerus fractures with an avascular head fragment and unreconstructable fracture types represent indications for humeral head replacement. Special prosthetic designs allow modular anatomical restoration of the centre of rotation and alignment and stable fixation of the tuberosities. These play a key role with respect to the functional outcome and are often prone to complete or partial osteolysis with secondary rotator cuff deficiency. Because the operational procedure is technically demanding, attention must be paid to correct implantation. The functional results which can be expected are reliable with a moderate Constant score of 50 to 60 points and a low pain level. In elderly patients with poor bone quality and an associated increased tuberosity-related complication rate, a primary inverse prosthetic design has to be considered as a reasonable alternative. The overall revision rate is approximately 11 %.

Keywords

Tuberosity resorption Fracture design Skull fragment Rotation center Rotator cuff insufficiency 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor weist auf folgende Beziehungen hin: Prof. Dr. P. Habermeyer erhält Royalties der Firma Arthrex. PD Dr. M. Tauber und Dr. P. Magosch geben an, dass kein Interessenskonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Agorastides I, Sinopidis C, El Meligy M et al (2007) Early versus late mobilization after hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:S33–S38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2008) Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus: a minimum five-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:202–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bastian JD, Hertel R (2008) Initial post-fracture humeral head ischemia does not predict development of necrosis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:2–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bastian JD, Hertel R (2009) Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:216–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besch L, Daniels-Wredenhagen M, Mueller M et al (2009) Hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder after four-part fracture of the humeral head: a long-term analysis of 34 cases. J Trauma 66:211–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 11:401–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boileau P, Walch G (1998) Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. Problems and solutions. In: Walch G, Boileau P (eds) Shoulder arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 297–314Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frankle MA, Greenwald DP, Markee BA et al (2001) Biomechanical effects of malposition of tuberosity fragments on the humeral prosthetic reconstruction for four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:321–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 95:48–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gierer P, Simon C, Gradl G et al (2006) Complex proximal humerus fractures – management with a humeral head prosthesis? Clinical and radiological results of a prospective study. Orthopade 35:834–840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldman RT, Koval KJ, Cuomo F et al (1995) Functional outcome after humeral head replacement for acute three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:81–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gronhagen CM, Abbaszadegan H, Revay SA et al (2007) Medium-term results after primary hemiarthroplasty for comminute proximal humerus fractures: a study of 46 patients followed up for an average of 4.4 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:766–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartsock LA, Estes WJ, Murray CA et al (1998) Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 29:467–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M et al (2004) Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:427–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huten D BP, Bonnevialle P, Maynou C et al (1996) Rèsultats et indications de l’arthroplastie prothètique dans le fractures rècentes complexes de l’extrèmitè supèriere de l’humerus. Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT. Traumatismes rècents de l’epaule, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kontakis G, Tosounidis T, Galanakis I et al (2008) Prosthetic replacement for proximal humeral fractures. Injury 39:1345–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kontakis GM, Tosounidis TI, Christoforakis Z et al (2009) Early management of complex proximal humeral fractures using the Aequalis fracture prosthesis: a two- to five-year follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1335–1340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kralinger F, Schwaiger R, Wambacher M et al (2004) Outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty for fracture of the head of the humerus. A retrospective multicentre study of 167 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:217–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuner EH, Siebler G (1987) Dislocation fractures of the proximal humerus – results following surgical treatment. A follow-up study of 167 cases. Unfallchirurg 13:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loew M, Heitkemper S, Parsch D et al (2006) Influence of the design of the prosthesis on the outcome after hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in displaced fractures of the head of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:345–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murachovsky J, Ikemoto RY, Nascimento LG et al (2006) Pectoralis major tendon reference (PMT): a new method for accurate restoration of humeral length with hemiarthroplasty for fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:675–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nho SJ, Brophy RH, Barker JU et al (2007) Management of proximal humeral fractures based on current literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 3):44–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noyes MP, Kleinhenz B, Markert RJ et al (2011) Functional and radiographic long-term outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:372–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Jacob HA et al (2004) Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:575–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S et al (2011) Hemiarthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:1025–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Resch H, Beck E, Bayley I (1995) Reconstruction of the valgus-impacted humeral head fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:73–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reuther F, Muhlhausler B, Wahl D et al (2010) Functional outcome of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for fractures: a multicentre analysis. Injury 41:606–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM et al (2003) Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1215–1223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmal H, Klemt C, Sudkamp NP (2004) Evaluation of shoulder arthroplasty in treatment of four-fragment fractures of the proximal humerus. Unfallchirurg 107:575–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wretenberg P, Ekelund A (1997) Acute hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture in old patients. A retrospective evaluation of 18 patients followed for 2–7 years. Acta Orthop Scand 68:121–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Schulter- und EllenbogenchirurgieATOS-Klinik MünchenMünchenDeutschland
  2. 2.Zentrum für Schulter- und EllenbogenchirurgieATOS-Klinik HeidelbergHeidelbergDeutschland
  3. 3.Paracelsus Medizinische Universität SalzburgSalzburgÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations