Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Proximal humeral fractures with minimal displacement treated conservatively

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We reviewed 27 patients with a minimally displaced proximal humeral fracture treated conservatively after a mean follow-up of 25 (12–34) months. All fractures had united. Patients were evaluated using the Constant-Murley scoring system, and isokinetic muscle strength was tested using a Cybex dynamometer. Finally, all shoulders were examined ultrasonographically. The mean Constant score for all patients were 81 (54–100). Twenty-three patients had no or only mild pain, while three had moderate and one severe pain necessitating regular use of oral analgesics. Twenty patients were able to perform all activities of daily living, but seven had mild trouble in overhead activities and weight carrying. Only in one patient, the abduction peak torque equalled the one of the opposite shoulder. In all other patients, the peak torque was lower than, and in 14 patients below, 50%. In nine patients, rotator cuff tears were seen at ultrasonography.

Résumé

Nous avons examiné 27 malades avec une fracture humérale proximale peu déplacée traitée d’une manière conservatrice après un suivi moyen de 25 (12–34) mois. Toutes les fractures avaient consolidé. Les malades ont été évalués avec le score de Murley Constant et la force musculaire isokinetique a été testée par un dynamomètre Cybex. Toutes les épaules ont été examinées par échographie. Le score de Constant moyen pour tous les malades était de 81 (54–100). Vingt-trois malades n’avaient aucune douleur ou des douleurs très discrètes, trois avaient des douleurs modérées et une patiente avait des douleurs sévères nécessitant l’usage régulier d’analgésiques oraux. Vingt malades étaient capables d’exécuter toutes les activités de la vie quotidienne mais sept avaient des difficultés pour les activités en hauteur et pour le port de charges. Chez seulement un patient la force d’abduction maximum était égale à celle de l’épaule opposée, pour tous les autres malades elle était inférieure et chez 14 d’entre eux elle était même à moins de la moitié. Chez neuf patients une déchirure de la coiffe des rotateurs était visible à l’échographie.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Pollock RG (1998) Fractures of the proximal humerus. In: Rockwood and Matsen (eds), The shoulder, 2nd edn, Saunders, Philadelphia, pp:337–389

  2. Cahalan TD, Johnson ME, Chao EYS (1991) Shoulder strength analysis using the cybex II isokinetic dynamometer. Clin Orthop 271:249–257

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Constant CR, Murley AHG (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallagher MA, Zuckerman JD, Coumo F, Ortiz J (1996) The effect of age, speed and arm dominance on shoulder function in untrained men. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5:25–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim SH, Ha KI (2000) Arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic shoulders with minimally displaced greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy 6:695–700

    Google Scholar 

  6. Koval KJK, Gallagher MA, Marsicano JG (1997) Functional outcome after minimally displaced fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 79:203–207

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kristiansen B, Christensen SW (1987) Proximal humeral fractures; Late results in relation to classification and treatment. Acta Orthop Scand 58:124–127

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mack LA, Matsen FA, Kilcoyne RF, Davies PK, Sickler ME (1985) US evaluation of the rotator cuff. Radiology 157:205–209

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mills HJ, Horne G (1985) Fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. J Trauma 25:801–805

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Murray MP, Gore DR, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA (1985) Shoulder motion and muscle strength of normal men and women in two age groups. Clin Orthop 192:268–273

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neer CS (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures; Part I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 52:1077–1089

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tempelhof S, Rupp S, Seil R (1999) Age-related prevalence of rotator cuff tears in asymptomatic shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:296–299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Young TB, Wallace WA (1985) Conservative treatment of fractures and fracture-dislocations of the upper end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 67:373–377

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Selçuk Keser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keser, S., Bölükbaşı, S., Bayar, A. et al. Proximal humeral fractures with minimal displacement treated conservatively. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 28, 231–234 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-004-0552-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-004-0552-3

Keywords

Navigation