Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional follow-up of locking plate fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus

Plaques verrouillées pour fractures de l’humérus proximal; résultats fonctionnels

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

Abstract

Fractures of the proximal humerus account for 4–5% of all fractures with 80% requiring no surgical treatment. However, the management of the other 20% remains controversial. This study followed a series of 27 patients who had proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) plate fixation of their proximal humeral fractures. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. We reviewed 27 patients with a mean age of 61.1 years. The patients were classified as per the AO system into type A (n = 11), type B (n = 12) and type C (n = 3) fractures. The mean disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score was 51.8. The mean SF-36 scores for physical and social functions were 68.7 and 88.0, respectively. The mean Constant score was 50.5%. These results how that the PHILOS plate offers good functional outcomes across a spectrum of fracture severities and in an older population group. Its use should be considered where appropriate in the management of displaced proximal humeral fractures.

Résumé

Les fractures de l’humérus proximal représentent 4 % à 5 % de toutes les fractures et 80 % d’entre elles ne requièrent pas de traitement chirurgical. Alors que les modalités du traitement des 20 % restants fait controverse. Ce travail étudie 27 cas traités par plaque « PHILOS » pour fracture de l’humérus proximal. Tous les cas ont été contrôlés avec un recul d’au moins un an. Nos 27 patients avaient un âge moyen de 61.1 ans. Les cas ont été rangés selon la classification AO en type A (n = 11), type B (n = 12) et type C (n = 3). Le score DASH moyen était de 51.8. Le score SF-36 moyen pour l’état physique était à 68.7 et pour les fonctions sociales à 880. Le score de Constant moyen était à 50.5 %. Les analyses ont montré que la plaque PHILOS offre de bons résultats fonctionnels dans un éventail de fractures de sévérité variable et dans une population âgée. Son utilisation apparaît comme une bonne indication dans les fractures déplacées de l’humérus proximal.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adedapo AO, Ikpeme JO (2001) The results of internal fixation of three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures with the Polarus nail. Injury 32:115–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bindman AB, Keane D, Lurie N (1990) Measuring health changes among severely ill patients: the floor phenomenon. Med Care 28(12):1142–1152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bjorkenheim JM, Pajarinen J, Savolainen V (2004) Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with a locking compression plate: a retrospective evaluation of 72 patients followed for a minimum of 1 year. Acta Orthop Scand 75:741–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cornell CN (1994) Tension-band wiring supplemented by lag-screw fixation of proximal humerus fractures: a modified technique. Orthop Rev 23(5):19–23

    Google Scholar 

  6. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus: epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg 83B:799–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Esser RD (1994) Open reduction and internal fixation of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:244–251

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerber C, Werner CML, Vienne P (2004) Internal fixation of complex fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg 86B:848–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldman RT, Koval KJ, Cuomo F, Gallagher MA, Zuckerman JD (1995) Functional outcome after humeral head replacement for acute three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:81–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Jarvinen M, Vuori I (2000) Osteoporotic fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly Finnish persons: sharp increase in 1970–1998 and alarming projections for the new millennium. Acta Orthop Scand 71:465–470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Katolik LI, Romeo AA, Cole BJ, Verma NN, Hayden JK, Bach BR (2005) Normalization of the constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:279–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelty C, Stamer J, Irwin LR, Limb D (2000) Subacromial impingement due to the locking bolt of a humeral nail. Orthopaedics 23:1200

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Koukakis A, Apostolou CD, Taneja T, Korres DS, Amini A (2006) Fixation of proximal humerus fractures using the PHILOS plate: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kristiansen B, Kofoed H (1988) Transcutaneous reduction and external fixation of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. A controlled clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg 70B:821–824

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lind T, Kroner TK, Jensen J (1989) The epidemiology of fractures of the proximal humerus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 108(5):285–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Naranja RJ, Iannotti JP (2000) Displaced three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 8:373–382

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Neer CS (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures: part I: classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg 52A:1077–1089

    Google Scholar 

  20. Norris TR, Green A, McGuigan FX (1995) Late prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty for displaced proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:271–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Park MC, Murthi Am, Roth NS, Blaine TA, Levine WN, Bigliani LU (2003) Two-part and three-part fractures of the proximal humerus treated with suture fixation. J Orthop Trauma 17:319–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Qidwai SA (2001) Treatment of proximal humeral fractures by intramedullary Kirschner wires. J Trauma 50:1090–1095

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Resch H, Povacz P, Frohlich R, Wambacher M (1997) Percutaneous fixation of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg 79B:295–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Riemer BL, D’Ambrosia R (1992) The risk of injury to the axillary nerve, artery, and vein from proximal locking screws of humeral intramedullary nails. Orthopaedics 15:697–699

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE (2003) Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 85A:1215–1223

    Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson CM, Page RS (2004) Severely impacted valgus proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 86A(Suppl I, pt 2):143–155

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ruch DS, Glisson RR, Marr AW, Russell GB, Nunley JA (2000) Fixation of three-part proximal humeral fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma 14:36–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schai P, Imhoff A, Preiss S (1995) Comminuted humeral head fractures: a multicenter analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:319–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tamai K, Ohno W, Takemura M, Mashitori H, Hamada J, Saotome K (2005) Treatment of proximal humeral fractures with a new intramedullary nail. J Orthop Sci 10:180–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Visser CP, Coene LN, Brand R, Tavy DL (2001) Nerve lesions in proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:421–427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zyto K, Ahrengart L, Sperber A, Tornqvist H (1997) Treatment of displaced humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg 79B:412–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zyto K, Wallace WA, Frostick SP, Preston BJ (1998) Outcome after hemiarthroplasty for three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:85–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Waterford Regional Hospital, Waterford, Republic of Ireland

    K. N. Sharafeldin, J. F. Quinlan, J. Corrigan & I. P. Kelly

  2. 35 Rockford Manor, Stradbrook, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Republic of Ireland

    J. F. Quinlan

Authors
  1. K. N. Sharafeldin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. F. Quinlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Corrigan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I. P. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. F. Quinlan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharafeldin, K., Quinlan, J., Corrigan, J. et al. Functional follow-up of locking plate fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 18, 87–92 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-007-0266-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-007-0266-5

Keywords

Mots clés

Search

Navigation