Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 40, Issue 8, pp 1669–1674 | Cite as

Non-operative treatment of four-part fractures of the proximal end of the humerus: results of a prospective and retrospective multicentric study

  • Romain Bouchet
  • Damien Block
  • Thomas D’ollonne
  • François Gadea
  • Julia Gaillot
  • François Sirveaux
  • Dominique SaragagliaEmail author
  • the SOFCOT
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and medium-term results of non-operative treatment of four-part fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. The initial hypothesis was that non-operative treatment of fractures with little or no displacement is equivalent or superior to surgical treatment, and that non-operative treatment is probably insufficient for displaced fractures.

Methods

This was a multicentric, prospective and retrospective study, based on 384 four-part proximal humerus fractures, 58 of which involved non-operative treatments - 37 in the prospective study (Pro-CT4) and 21 in the retrospective study (Retro-CT4). The average patient age was 64 +/− 14 years (39–90); 66 % were female and 34 % male. In 88 % of these cases, non-operative treatment was chosen for the fracture, as there was little or no displacement. In 10 % of cases, non-operative treatment was chosen “by default”, due to the patient’s medical conditions, as surgery was contraindicated, and in 2 % of cases due to the patient refusing surgery. All patients were reviewed clinically and radiologically, with SSV evaluation, absolute and weighted Constant scores and the Quick DASH score all assessed. The main evaluation criterion was the weighted Constant score which was considered a failure when below 70 %.

Results

In the Pro-CT4 study, the average follow-up period was 11 +/− four months (5–18) with functional scores as follows: average SSV: 72 +/− 26 % (8–100); average Constant score: 65 +/− 21 points (21–95); average weighted Constant score: 86 +/− 26 % (32–130); average Quick DASH: 23 +/− 21 (0–64). 27 % of patients had a weighted Constant score below 70 %.

In the Retro-CT4 study, the average follow-up period was 38 +/− 13 months (18–62) with functional scores as follows: average SSV: 73 +/− 17 % (30–100); average Constant score: 68 +/− 18 points (33–95); average weighted Constant score: 88 +/− 27 % (47–133); average Quick DASH: 18 +/− 16 (0–48); 24 % of patients had a weighted Constant score below 70 %.

Conclusion

This study confirms our initial hypothesis. When non-operative treatment of four-part proximal humerus fractures is carried out by choice, the results are excellent. However, when this treatment is carried out “by default” — especially because surgery is contraindicated — the results are disappointing.

Level of evidence IV: prospective and retrospective studies.

Keywords

Humerus Fracture Four-part fracture Non-operative treatment Proximal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

- To the study’s investigators: P. Boileau, P. Clavert, C. Cuny, L. Doursounian, L. Favard, L. Obert, P. Mansat, H. Thomazeau,T. Fabre, X. Ohl, F. Sirveaux and D. Saragaglia.

- To : A. Berrichi, MO. Gauci, J. Mayer, P. Mangin, C. Nérot, R. Saadnia, X. Clément, G. Dillmann, BJ Chedal-Bornu, G. Boudard, J. Lombard, Y. Knaffo, C. Goetz, L. Decroocq, Y. Bouju, J. Berhouet, G. Bacle, A. Erbland, B. Dunet, H. Demezon, J. Rigal, A. Adam, E. Jardin, T. Zapaterra, N. Gasse, S. Rochet, D. Ancelin, T. Trang, J. Lebon, B. Aisene, H. Coudane, D. Mainard, for their scientific contribution.

- To : A. Fregeac and AERCOT, and N. Ramdane (Biostatistics unit, CHRU teaching hospital, Lille), for their logistical assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cm C-B, Caesar B (2006) Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 37:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J (2006) Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahrs C, Stojicevic T, Blumenstock G, Brorson S, Badke A, Stöckle U, Rolauffs B, Freude T (2014) Trends in epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop 38:1697–704. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2362-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hertel R (2005) Fractures of the proximal humerus in osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int 16(suppl 2):S65–S72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbart MK, Gerber G (2007) Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the constant score. J Shoulder Elb Surg 16:717–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Leunig M (2004) Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM (2002) The impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus. The results of non-operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 84:504–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neer CN (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077–1089PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koval KJ, Gallagher MA, Marsicano JG, Cuomo F, McShinawy A, Zckerman JD (1997) Functional outcome after minimally displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:203–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQuenn MM (2001) The translated two-part of the proximal humerus epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 83:799–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boons HW, Goosen JH, Van Grinsven S, Van Susante JL, Van Loon CJ (2012) Hemiarthroplasty for humeral four-part fractures for patients 65 years and older: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3483–3491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Egol KA, Crispin C, Ong BA, Walsh M, Jazrawi LM, Tejwani NC, Zuckerman JD (2008) Early complications in proximal humerus fractures (OTA types 11) treated with locked plates. J Orthop Trauma 22:159–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van den Broek CM, van den Beddelaar M, Coenen JM, Vegt PA (2007) Displaced proximal humeral fractures: intramedullary nailing versus conservative treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127:459–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fu T, Xia C, Li Z, Wu H (2014) Surgical versus conservative treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 7:4607–4615PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fjalestad T, Hole MØ (2014) Displaced proximal humeral fractures: operative versus non-operative treatment: a 2-year extension of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:1067–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gradl G, Knobe M, Pape HC, Neuhaus PV, Ring D, Guitton T (2015) Decision making in displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: fracture or surgeon based? Int Orthop 39:329–34. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2630-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith AM, Mardones RM, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2007) Early complications of operatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 16:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jost B, Spross C, Grehn H, Gerber C (2013) Locking plate fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus: analysis of complications, revision strategies and outcome. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:542–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romain Bouchet
    • 1
  • Damien Block
    • 2
  • Thomas D’ollonne
    • 3
  • François Gadea
    • 4
  • Julia Gaillot
    • 1
  • François Sirveaux
    • 2
  • Dominique Saragaglia
    • 1
    Email author
  • the SOFCOT
    • 5
  1. 1.Clinique Universitaire de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie du SportCHU de Grenoble Hôpital SudÉchirolles cedexFrance
  2. 2.Centre Chirurgical Emile GalléNancyFrance
  3. 3.Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologie du sportCHU Nice Pasteur 2Nicecedex 1France
  4. 4.Service d’orthopédie et Traumatologie I, CHRU TrousseauUniversité François RabelaisTours Cedex 1France
  5. 5.Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de TraumatologieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations