International Orthopaedics

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 1267–1273 | Cite as

Percutaneous pinning of three- or four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients in poor general condition: MIROS® versus traditional pinning

  • Stefano Carbone
  • Mario Tangari
  • Stefano Gumina
  • Roberto Postacchini
  • Andrea Campi
  • Franco Postacchini
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Elderly subjects often have fractures of the proximal humerus, which may be difficult to manage in patients in poor general condition. The MIROS is a new percutaneous pinning device allowing correction of angular displacement and stable fixation of fracture fragments. We evaluated the results of percutaneous fixation of three- or four-part fractures of the proximal humerus of patients in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status three or four treated either with MIROS or traditional percutaneous pinning (TPP).

Methods

A total of 31 patients treated with MIROS and 27 undergoing TPP were enrolled in the study. Pre-operatively anteroposterior and transthoracic or axillary radiographs were obtained in all cases and computed tomography scans in patients with the most complex fractures. Follow-up evaluations were carried out at three, six, 12 and 16 weeks, and six months, one year and two years postoperatively, using the Constant Score (CS) and subjective shoulder value (SSV) methods.

Results

Of the 58 patients, 52 could be evaluated at all follow-ups. In both three- or four-part fractures there were significantly higher CS and SSV scores in the MIROS compared to the TPP group at all the late follow-ups. Lower rates of deep infection, pin tract infection and pin mobilisation were found in the MIROS group (p < 0.001). In both groups there was a significant association between the final result (CS) and either the type of fracture or complications (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The MIROS resulted in better clinical results and less complications than TPP in elderly patients. This method, however, may not be indicated for younger patients in good general condition.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lill H, Josten C (2001) Conservative or operative treatment of humeral head fractures in the elderly? Chirurg 72:1224–1234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Misra A, Kapur R, Maffulli N (2001) Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults—a systematic review of management. Injury 32:363–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, Stengel D (2009) Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:612–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Resch H, Povacz P, Fröhlich R, Wambacher M (1997) Percutaneous fixation of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:295–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Resch H, Hübner C, Schwaiger R (2001) Minimally invasive reduction and osteosynthesis of articular fractures of the humeral head. Injury 32:SA25–SA32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hintermann B, Trouillier HH, Schäfer D (2000) Rigid internal fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus in older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:1107–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koukakis A, Apostolou CD, Taneja T, Korres DS, Amini A (2006) Fixation of proximal humerus fractures using the PHILOS plate: early experience. Clin Orthop 442:115–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch U, Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Tscherne H (1998) Outcome after primary and secondary hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:479–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Bastian JD, Hertel R (2009) Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive cases series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:216–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Resch H, Beck E, Bayley J (1995) Reconstruction of the valgus-impacted humeral head fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:73–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Resch H, Povacz P, Schwaiger R (2000) Osteosynthesis of intra-articular fractures of the proximal humerus. Surg Tech Orthop Traumatol 55:170-B-10Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL (1978) ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 49:239–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neer CS II (2002) Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:389–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Constant CR, Murley AGH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerber C, Fuchs B, Hodler J (2000) The results of repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:505–515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaberg H, Warner JP, Jacob RP (1992) Percutaneous stabilization of unstable fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:508–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen CY, Chao EK, Tu YK, Ueng SWE, Shih CH (1998) Closed management and percutaneous fixation of unstable proximal humerus fractures. J Trauma 45:1039–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neer CS II (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1090–1103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soete PJ, Clayson PE, Costenoble H (1999) Transitory percutaneous pinning in fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blonna D, Castoldi F, Scelsi M, Rossi R, Falcone G, Assom M (2010) The hybrid technique: potential reduction in complications related to pins mobilization in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(8):1218–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bogner R, Hübner C, Matis N, Auffarth A, Lederer S, Resch H (2008) Minimally-invasive treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1602–1607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Carbone
    • 1
  • Mario Tangari
    • 2
  • Stefano Gumina
    • 1
  • Roberto Postacchini
    • 3
  • Andrea Campi
    • 2
  • Franco Postacchini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity of Rome SapienzaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologySan Giovanni-Addolorata HospitalRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyIsraelitico HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations