International Orthopaedics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 425–432 | Cite as

Second generation locked plating of proximal humerus fractures—A prospective multicentre observational study

  • Götz RödererEmail author
  • Johannes Erhardt
  • Markus Kuster
  • Paul Vegt
  • Christian Bahrs
  • Lothar Kinzl
  • Florian Gebhard
Original Paper


Surgical treatment of most displaced proximal humerus fractures is challenging due to osteoporosis. Locking plates are intended to provide superior mechanical stability. In a prospective multicentre study 131 patients were treated with second generation locked plating (NCB-PH, Zimmer, Inc.). The open procedure (n = 78) was performed using a deltopectoral approach; the minimally invasive technique (n = 53) involved percutaneous reduction and an anterolateral deltoid split approach. Clinical and radiological follow-up was obtained. Improvement in function (ROM) was statistically significant. Fracture type (AO) had the most significant impact on the incidence of complications. The most frequent complications detected were intra-articular screw perforation (15%) and secondary displacement (8%). Complication rate and functional outcome of the NCB-PH are comparable to reports in the literature. Not all problems are likely to be solved by this new generation of implants, i.e. secondary dislocation still occurred in 8% of our patients.


Proximal Humeral Fracture Minimally Invasive Proximal Humerus Fracture Axillary Nerve Secondary Displacement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Conflict of interest

The institutions received financial reimbursement from Zimmer, Inc. for conducting this follow-up. None of the authors received financial reimbursement or anything of value for conducting this follow-up. The first and fourth authors are instructional lecturers for Trauma Courses by the Zimmer Institute.


  1. 1.
    Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:365–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Helmy N, Hintermann B (2006) New trends in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:100–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lill H, Hepp P, Rose T et al (2004) The angle stable locking-proximal-humerus-plate (LPHP®) for proximal humeral fractures using a small anterior-lateral-deltoid-splitting-approach—technique and first results. Zentralbl Chir 129:43–48 (in German)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lill H, Josten C (2001) Conservative or operative treatment of humeral head fractures in the elderly? Chirurg 72:1224–1234 (in German)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plecko M, Kraus A (2005) Internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using the locking proximal humerus plate. Oper Orthop Traumatol 17:25–50 (in German)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wijgman AJ, Roolker W, Patt TW et al (2002) Open reduction and internal fixation of three and four-part fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Jt Surg 84-A(11):1919–1925Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwon BK, Goertzen DJ, O’Brien PJ et al (2002) Biomechanical evaluation of proximal humeral fracture fixation supplemented with calcium phosphate cement. J Bone Jt Surg 84-A:951–961Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cofield RH (1988) Comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop 230:49–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esser RD (1994) Treatment of three and four part fractures of the proximal humerus with a modified cloverleaf plate. J Orthop Trauma 8:15–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chudik SC, Weinhold P, Dahners LE (2003) Fixed-angle plate fixation in simulated fractures of the proximal humerus: a biomechanical study of a new device. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12(6):578–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siffri PC, Peindl RD, Coley ER et al (2006) Biomechanical analysis of blade plate versus locking plate fixation for a proximal humerus fracture: comparison using cadaveric and synthetic humeri. J Orthop Trauma 20(8):547–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinstein DM, Bratton DR, Ciccone WJ et al (2006) Locking plate improves torsional resistance in the stabilization of three part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(2):239–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agueldo J, Schürmann M, Stahel P et al (2007) Analysis of efficacy and failure in proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plate. J Orthop Trauma 21(10):676–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frankenhauser F, Boldin C, Schnippinger G et al (2005) A new locking plate for unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:176–181Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laflamme GY, Rouleau DM, Berry GK et al (2008) Percutaneous humeral plating of fractures of the proximal humerus: results of a prospective multicenter clinical trial. J Orthop Trauma 22(3):153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hepp P, Theopold J, Voigt C et al (2008) The surgical approach for locking plate osteosynthesis of displaced proximal humeral fractures influences the functional influences the outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(1):21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Röderer G, Gebhard F, Erhardt J et al (2007) The non-contact bridging plate: a new fixed angle device for the minimally-invasive treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus—technique and preliminary results. Unfallchirurg 110(6):505–512 (in German)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Röderer G, Abouelsoud M, Gebhard F et al (2007) Minimally-invasive application of the non-contact bridging plate to the proximal humerus. An anatomical study. J Orthop Trauma 21(9):621–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erhardt JB, Röderer G, Grob K et al (2009) Early results in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures with a polyaxial locking plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(10):1367–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resch H, Hübner C, Schwaiger R (2001) Minimally invasive reduction and osteosynthesis of articular fractures of the humeral head. Int J Integr Care Injured 32S-A:25–32Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neer CS 2nd (2002) Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:389–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Müller ME, Nazarin S, Koch P (1987) Classification AO des fractures: les os logs. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (in French) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C et al (2009) Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma 23(3):163–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P et al (2009) Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with the use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Jt Surg 91-A(6):1320–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP et al (2009) Surgical treatment of three and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 91-A(7):1689–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bahrs C, Badke A, Rolauffs B et al (2009) Long-term results after non-plate head-preserving fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0848-4

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Götz Röderer
    • 4
    Email author
  • Johannes Erhardt
    • 1
  • Markus Kuster
    • 1
  • Paul Vegt
    • 2
  • Christian Bahrs
    • 3
  • Lothar Kinzl
    • 4
  • Florian Gebhard
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKantonsspital St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryAlbert Schweitzer HospitalDordrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Trauma SurgeryBG Unfallklinik TübingenTübingenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic TraumaUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations