Advertisement

Operative Technique of Angular Stable Plate Fixation

  • Ahmet Yıldırım
  • Mustafa Özer
Chapter

Abstract

The prolonged life span leads to proximal humerus fractures as a common clinical condition in general orthopedic practice. The treatment to be administered to the patient should maximize the functional expectation of the patient and reduce the pain to the lowest level. The fracture line passing through the humeral neck affects blood flow to the humeral head. In short fractures with medial calcar, all vascular structures that make anastomosis to the arcuate artery supplying the humeral head are injured.

In proximal humerus fractures, clinical conditions having an absolute requirement for surgery include open fractures and progressive neurovascular deficits. In addition, surgery should be considered urgently for fracture-dislocations that cannot be reduced. Other clinical conditions that require surgery include fractures being severely displaced or unstable after closed reduction, three- to four-part fractures, and greater tuberosity fractures greater than 5 mm preventing rotator cuff function.

In patients in whom we consider plate and screw fixation, our preference is the deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position. The position, size, and bone quality of fracture fragments as well as the tendons of rotator cuff muscles and the long head of the biceps tendon are evaluated before reduction. Ethibond suture 5-0 or fiber wire suture 5-0 are placed into the rotator cuff tendons in such a way as to include the bone close to the bone-tendon junction as possible as by considering the fracture fragments because these sutures are used for the manipulation and reduction of fracture fragments. K-wires are used to provide temporary stabilization of particularly proximal parts before plate placement. The most important point to keep in mind for maintenance of stabilization in the reduction is to maintain medial continuity.

Possible complications after locking plate applications in proximal humerus fractures include technical errors, poor bone quality, lack of anatomical reduction (especially lack of medial cortical continuity), and early aggressive rehabilitation.

Even if the locking plate gives very good results in proximal humerus fractures related to the most mobile joint in the human body, it should be kept in mind that 80% of these fractures can heal without problems with conservative follow-up. The most important criterion for success in patients undergoing surgery is stable anatomical fracture reduction that can provide medial support in particular. Locking plates are necessary for osteosynthesis in patients with unstable osteoporotic multipart fractures. Proper rehabilitation is essential for success as it is in other treatment modalities.

Keywords

Humerus Fracture Shoulder Plate Surgical technique Osteosynthesis 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We kindly thank Prof. Ulunay Kanatli for the images from his private archive.

References

  1. 1.
    Siffri PC, Peindl RD, Coley ER, Norton J, Connor PM, Kellam JF. Biomechanical analysis of blade plate versus locking plate fixation for a proximal humerus fracture: comparison using cadaveric and synthetic humeri. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(8):547–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palvanen M, Kannus P, Parkkari J, Pitkäja T, Pasanen M, Vuori I, et al. The injury mechanisms of osteoporotic upper extremity fractures among older adults: a controlled study of 287 consecutive patients and their 108 controls. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(10):822–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeFranco MJ, Brems JJ, Williams GR Jr, Iannotti JP. Evaluation and management of valgus impacted four-part proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:109–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iyengar JJ, Ho J, Feeley BT. Evaluation and management of proximal humerus fractures. Phys Sportsmed. 2011;39(1):52–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(4):365–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rose SH, Morrey B, Ilstrup D, Riggs B. Epidemiologic features of humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;168:24–30.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarrafian SK. Gross and functional anatomy of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;173:11–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peat M. Functional anatomy of the shoulder complex. Phys Ther. 1986;66(12):1855–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Netter FH. Atlas of human anatomy, Professional Edition E-Book: including NetterReference.com Access with full downloadable image Bank. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks C, Revell W, Heatley FW. Vascularity of the humeral head after proximal humeral fractures. An anatomical cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:132–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crosby LA, Neviaser RJ. Proximal humerus fractures: evaluation and management. Berlin: Springer; 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hettrich CM, Boraiah S, Dyke JP, Neviaser A, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Quantitative assessment of the vascularity of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(4):943–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. Orthop Trauma Dir. 2007;5(04):25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus: implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(5):857–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khmelnitskaya E, Lamont LE, Taylor SA, Lorich DG, Dines DM, Dines JS. Evaluation and management of proximal humerus fractures. Adv Orthop. 2012;2012:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rockwood CA. The shoulder: Elsevier Health Sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoppenfeld S, Buckley R. Surgical exposures in orthopaedics: the anatomic approach. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Badman BL, Mighell M. Fixed-angle locked plating of two·, three-, and four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(5):294–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neviaser AS, Lorich DG. Surgical treatment of three-part proximal humeral fractures with plate fixation. In: Craig EV, editor. The shoulder. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2013. p. 455–63.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iannotti JP, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Warner JJ. Nonprosthetic management of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1578–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lind T, Krøner K, Jensen J. The epidemiology of fractures of the proximal humerus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989;108:285–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Leuning M. Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2004;13:427–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bastian JD, Hertel R. Initial post-fracture humeral head ischemia does not predict development of necrosis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17:2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hettrich CM, Neviaser A, Beamer BS, Paul O, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Locked plating of the proximal humerus using an endosteal implant. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(4):212–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD. Surgical treatment of three and four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1689–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ribeiro FR, Takesian FH, Bezerra LEP, Filho RB, Júnior ACT, da Costa MP. Impacted valgus fractures of the proximal humerus. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016;51(2):127–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacob RP, Miniaci A, Anson PS, Jaberg H, Osterwalder A, Ganz R. Four-part valgus impacted fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:295–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    DeFrano MJ, Brems JJ, Williams GR, Iannotti P. Evaluation and management of valgus impacted four-part proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gerber C, Werner CM, Vienne P. Internal fixation of complex fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:848–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hessmann MH, Rommens PM. Osteosynthesis techniques in proximal humeral fractures. Chirurg. 2001;72:1235–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cornell CN. Internal fracture fixation in patients with osteoporosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11:109–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wijgman AJ, Roolker W, Patt TW, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of three and four-part fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84A(11):1919–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Egol KA, Patel D. Open reduction, internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures: indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications. In: lannotli JP, Miniaci A, Williams GR, Zuckerman JD, editors. Disorders of the shoulder diagnosis and management: shoulder trauma. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014. p. 26–43.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weinstein DM, Bratton DR, Ciccone WJ, Elias JJ. Locking plates improve torsional resistance in the stabilization of three-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2006;15(2):239–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gaheer RS, Hawkins A. Fixation of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures using the PHILOS plate: mid-term results. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bigorre N, Talha A, Cronier P, et al. A prospective study of a new locking plate for proximal humeral fracture. Injury. 2009;40(2):192–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, 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
  39. 39.
    Moonot P, Ashwood N, Hamlet M. Early results for treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus using the PHILOS plate system. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(9):1206–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parmaksizoglu S, Sokucu S, Ozkaya U, et al. Locking plate fixation of three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010;44(2):97–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sudkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, 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
  42. 42.
    Yang H, Li Z, Zhou F, et al. A prospective clinical study of proximal humerus fractures treated with a locking proximal humerus plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(1):11–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD. Locked plating of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in older patients: the effect of initial fracture pattern on outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(2):113–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Borrelli J, Cornell CN. Operative treatment of displaced surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus. In: Craig EV, editor. The shoulder. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2013. p. 483–92.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ricchetti ET, Warrender WJ, Abboud JA. Use of locking plates in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(2 Suppl):66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jaberg H, Warner JJ, Jakob RP. Percutaneous stabilization of unstable fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:508–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gerber C. Reconstructive surgery following malunion of fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. Orthopade. 1990;19(6):316–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Egol KA, Ong CC, Walsh M, et al. Early complications in proximal humerus fractures (OTA types 11) treated with locked plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(3):159–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee CW, Shin SJ. Prognostic factors for unstable proximal humeral fractures treated with locking-plate fixation. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18:83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, et al. Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18:837–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Greiner S, Kaab MJ, Haas NP, Bail HJ. Humeral head necrosis rate at mid-term follow-up after open reduction and angular stable plate fixation for proximal humeral fractures. Injury. 2009;40(2):186–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sproul RC, Iyengar JJ, Devcic Z, Feeley BT. A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2011;42(4):408–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmet Yıldırım
    • 1
  • Mustafa Özer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologySelçuk University School of MedicineKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyMeram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations