HSS Journal ®

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 86–91 | Cite as

Treatment of Two-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures: Intramedullary Nail Compared to Locked Plating

  • Nikola Lekic
  • Nicole M. Montero
  • Richelle C. Takemoto
  • Roy I. Davidovitch
  • Kenneth A. Egol
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Two-part proximal humerus fractures are common orthopedic injuries for which surgical intervention is often indicated. Choosing a fixation device remains a topic of debate.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare two methods of fixation for two-part proximal humerus fractures, locking plate (LP) with screws versus intramedullary nailing (IMN), with respect to alignment, healing, patient outcomes, and complications. To our knowledge, a direct comparison of these two devices in treating two-part proximal humerus fractures has never before been studied. We hope that our results will help surgeons assess the utility of LP versus IMN.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on 24 cases of displaced two-part surgical neck fractures of the humerus. Twelve shoulders were treated using IMN fixation and 12 others were fixated with LP. Data collected included sociodemographic, operative details, and postoperative care and function.

Results

Radiographic comparison of fixation demonstrated an average neck-shaft angle of 124° and 120° in the IMN group and LP group, respectively. Adjusted postoperative 6-month follow-up range of motion was 134° of forward elevation in the IMN group and 141 in the LP group. The differences in range of motion and in complication rates were not found to be significant.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that either LP fixation or IMN fixation for a two-part proximal humerus fracture provides acceptable fixation and results in a similar range of shoulder motion. Although complication rates were low and insignificant between the two groups, a trend toward increased complications in the IMN group is noted.

Keywords

two-part proximal humerus fracture locking plate intramedullary nail outcomes of proximal humerus fractures 

Notes

Disclosures

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a significant conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

References

  1. 1.
    Agudelo J, Schürmann M, Stahel P, Helwig P, Morgan SJ, Zechel W, et al. Analysis of efficacy and failure in proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10):676–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009; 23(3):163–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Egol KA, Ong CC, Walsh M, Jazrawi LM, Tejwani NC, Zuckerman JD. Early complications in proximal humerus fractures (OTA Types 11) treated with locked plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(3):159–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esser RD. Treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus with a modified cloverleaf plate. J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8(1):15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freedman EL, Johnson EE. Radiographic analysis of tibial fracture malalignment following intramedullary nailing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;(315):25–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Handoll H, Brealey S, Rangan A, Torgerson D, Dennis L, Armstrong A, et al. Protocol for the ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hawkins RJ, Bell RH, Gurr K. The three-part fracture of the proximal part of the humerus. Operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(9):1410–4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horak J, Nilsson BE. Epidemiology of fracture of the upper end of the humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;112:250–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Konrad G, Audigé L, Lambert S, Hertel R, Südkamp NP. Similar outcomes for nail versus plate fixation of three-part proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):602–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koval KJ, Clapper MF, Brumback RJ, Ellison PS, Poka A, Bathon GH, Burgess AR. Complications of reamed intramedullary nailing of the tibia. J Orthop Trauma, 1991;5(2):184–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077–89.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osman N, Touam C, Masmejean E, Asfazadourian H, Alnot JY. Results of non-operative and operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. A series of 104 cases. Chir Main. 1998;17(3):195–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Popescu D, Fernandez-Valencia JA, Rios M, Cuñé J, Domingo A, Prat S. Internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using the T2-proximal humeral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(9):1239–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Putti AB, Uppin RB, Putti BB. Locked intramedullary nailing versus dynamic compression plating for humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009;17(2):139–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell TA, Mir HR, Stoneback J, Cohen J, Downs B. Avoidance of malreduction of proximal femoral shaft fractures with the use of a minimally invasive nail insertion technique (MINIT). J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(6):391–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savoie FH, Geissler WB, Vander Griend RA. Open reduction and internal fixation of three-part fractures of the proximal humerus. Orthopedics. 1989;12(1):65–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M, et al. 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. 2009;91(6):1320–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanner MW, Cofield RH. Prosthetic arthroplasty for fractures and fracture-dislocations of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;179:116–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trepat AD, Popescu D, Fernández-Valencia JA, Cuñé J, Rios M, Prat S. Comparative study between locking plates versus proximal humeral nail for the treatment of 2-part proximal humeral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012. (In press)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zyto K. Non-operative treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients. Injury. 1998;29(5):349–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikola Lekic
    • 1
  • Nicole M. Montero
    • 2
  • Richelle C. Takemoto
    • 2
  • Roy I. Davidovitch
    • 2
  • Kenneth A. Egol
    • 2
  1. 1.Georgetown University School of MedicineWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.New York University Hospital for Joint DiseasesNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations