The amount of humeral head impaction of proximal humeral fractures fixed with the Humerusblock device
- 385 Downloads
The Humerusblock is a minimally invasive device allowing fixation of proximal humeral fractures. A drawback of the device is possible K-wire perforation of the head with the need for early removal of the implant. We assessed the amount of humeral head impaction and its role in the postoperative varus/valgus deviation of the humeral head in fractures of the upper humerus treated with Humerusblock.
Fractures were classified according to the Codman-Lego system. The length of the posteromedial metaphyseal extension and integrity of medial hinge were measured; metaphyseal comminution was assessed. Accuracy of fracture reduction was classified as excellent to poor. An original method of measurement of amount of postoperative impaction of the humeral head was developed. The impaction and varus/valgus inclination of the heads were measured comparing postoperative and three-month follow-up radiographs. Constant score and its relation to sintering was calculated at 12-month follow-up.
Forty-three fractures were available for follow-up. The amount of humeral head impaction was 3.9 mm on average and was directly correlated with patient’s age, sex, Codman-Lego classification, varus inclination and mataphyseal comminution. The postoperative cervico-diaphyseal angle was restored in 35 cases, with 81 % good results. The Humerusblock was removed in 41 % of cases because of K-wire perforation of the humeral head. A negative correlation was found between impaction and Constant score.
The amount of humeral head impaction is related to patients’ age, sex, and fracture patterns, being the most prone to compaction those with metaphyseal comminution. Humeral head impaction negatively affects final Constant score.
KeywordsProximal humerus fractures Humeral head impaction Sintering Humerusblock Metaphyseal comminution Calculation of head impaction Complications
Conflict of interest
No support and disclaimer to declare.
(WMV 5294 kb)
- 8.Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M, Luo C, Plecko M, Wendt K, Köstler W, Konrad G (2009) 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 91:1320–1328. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Tepass A, Blumenstock G, Weise K, Rolauffs B, Bahrs C (2013) Current strategies for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of a survey carried out at 348 hospitals in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:e8–e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.04.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Vundelinckx BJ, Dierickx CA, Bruckers L, Dierickx CH (2012) Functional and radiographic medium-term outcome evaluation of the Humerus Block, a minimally invasive operative technique for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:1197–1206. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.029 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Carbone S, Tangari M, Gumina S, Postacchini R, Campi A, Postacchini F (2012) Percutaneous pinning of 3-or 4-part fractures of proximal humerus in elderly patients in poor general conditions: MIROS® versus traditional pinning. Int Orthop 36:1267–1273. doi: 10.1007/soo264-011-1474-5 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Galatz LM, Kim HM (2007) Minimally invasive techniques for proximal humerus fractures. In: Iannotti JP, Willams GR (eds) Disorders of the shoulder, vol 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Willams & Wikkins, Philadelphia, pp 873–888Google Scholar