Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of locking compression plate for proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients without structural bone grafting: age group of 65–79 compared to 80 and above

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study shows the effectiveness of locking compression plate for proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients over 80 years old without structural bone grafting compared age group of 65–79 (Group 1) with 80 and above (Group 2).

Methods

This study included sixty-one patients who underwent using locking compression plate for proximal humeral fractures between April 2016 and November 2021. The patients were divided into two groups. The neck shaft angle (NSA) was checked at immediately after surgery, at 1 month and the final follow-up visit. The NSA changes in the two groups were compared using the independent t-test. In addition, multiple regression analysis was used to find out which factors affect NSA changes.

Results

In group 1, the mean difference between NSA immediately after surgery and 1 month after surgery was 2.74°, and group 2 was 2.89°. In group 1, the mean difference in NSA for 1 month after surgery and at the last follow-up was 1.43°, and group 2 was 1.75°. No significant difference was observed in the NSA changes between two groups (p = 0.59, 0.173). Bone marrow density and four-part fracture type were significant difference in NSA changes (p = 0.003, 0.035). The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scale (DASH scale), age, medical support, diabetes and three-part fracture type were no significant in NSA changes.

Conclusions

Using locking compression plate without structural bone grafting is a good option in elderly patients over 80 years old and can help achieve radiological results similar to patients which age group of 67–79.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Helmy N, Hintermann B (2006) New trends in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:100–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000194674.56764.c0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mills HJ, Horne G (1985) Fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. J Trauma 25:801–805. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-198508000-00013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B (2001) Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 37:691–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Court-Brown CM, Garg A (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:365–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164701753542023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tejwani NC, Liporace F, Walsh M, France MA, Zuckerman JD, Egol KA (2008) Functional outcome following one-part proximal humeral fractures: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:216–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.07.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shin SJ et al (2010) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of proximal, middle and distal humerus fractures. J Korean Orthop Assoc 45:448–455. https://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2010.45.6.448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wagner M et al (2003) General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 34:31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim JY et al (2020) Comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and the deltopectoral approach with allogenous fibular bone graft in proximal humeral fractures. Clin Shoulder Elbow 23:136–143. https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2020.00199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Neer CS (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner MJ, Griffith MH, Lorich DG (2005) Helical plating of the proximal humerus. Injury 36:1197–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.06.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Agudelo J, Schurmann M, Stahel P et al (2007) Analysis of efficacy and failure in proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plates. J Orthop Trauma 21:676–681. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31815bb09d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Namdari S et al (2012) Evaluation of the osteoporotic proximal humeral fracture and strategies for structural augmentation during surgical treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:1787–1795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pawaskar AC et al (2012) Locking plate for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly population. Clin Orthop Surg 4:209–2015. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2012.4.3.209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Charalambous CP, Siddique I, Valluripalli K et al (2007) Proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0256-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fankhauser F, Boldin C, Schippinger G, Haunschmid C, Szyszkowitz R (2005) A new locking plate for unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:176–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000137554.91189.a9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leyshon RL (1984) Closed treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus. Acta Orthop Scand 55:48–51. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678408992310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Daejeon Sun Hospital, 29 Mok-Dong, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 34811, South Korea

    Chul Hyung Lee & Seo Yul Kim

Authors
  1. Chul Hyung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seo Yul Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CL conceptualized the study and its methodology. SK prepared the study’s original draft and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chul Hyung Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval to report these cases was obtained from the Institutional. Review Board of Daejeon Sun Hospital (DSH-인-22-04). The study conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) for their anonymized information to be published in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, C.H., Kim, S.Y. Effectiveness of locking compression plate for proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients without structural bone grafting: age group of 65–79 compared to 80 and above. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 33, 3461–3467 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03569-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03569-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation