Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The complexity of proximal humeral fractures is age and gender specific

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orthopaedic Science

Abstract

Background

Studies that investigated possible associations between the complexity of proximal humeral fractures and patient characteristics are rare. We hypothesized that the grade of fracture complexity may correlate with age and gender of hospitalized, adult patients.

Methods

Based on the Neer classification, we defined four radiological grades of fracture complexity. The data of adult patients that were treated during a 9-year period at a German hospital serving a town of 80,000 inhabitants was reviewed.

Results

Seven hundred and eighty fractures were evaluated [518 female/262 male (66.41/33.59 %), average age 64.2 years (range 17.4–99.2)]. During the study period, the number of fractures increased to 167 %. Almost two-thirds of the patients were females and older than 60 years. Of all fractures, 86 % were displaced fractures. In patients younger than 60 years, 1.99-fold more complex fractures occurred in males (32.4 %) than in females (16.2 %). In contrast, in patients older than 60 years, 1.72-fold more complex fractures occurred in females (54.1 %) than in males (31.5 %). There was a significant association between low-energy trauma and female gender older than 60 years.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated an overall increase of displaced proximal fractures. The vast majority of patients with more complex fractures consisted of female patients older than 60 years.

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. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bell JE, Leung BC, Spratt KF, Koval KJ, Weinstein JD, Goodman DC, Tosteson AN. Trends and variation in incidence, surgical treatment, and repeat surgery of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:121–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lippuner K, Popp AW, Schwab P, Gitlin M, Schaufler T, Senn C, Perrelet R. Fracture hospitalizations between years 2000 and 2007 in Switzerland: a trend analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2487–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:365–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kristiansen B, Barfod G, Bredesen J, Erin-Madsen J, Grum B, Horsnaes MW, Aalberg JR. Epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1987;58:75–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sonderegger J, Simmen HP. Epidemiology, treatment and results of proximal humeral fractures: experience of a district hospital in a sports- and tourism area. Zentralbl Chir. 2003;128:119–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Edelson G, Saffuri H, Obid E, Vigder F. The three-dimensional anatomy of proximal humeral fractures. J Should Elb Surg. 2009;18:535–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1077–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neer CS 2nd. Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Should Elb Surg. 2002;11:389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1077–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacob RP, Kristiansen T, Mayo K, Ganz R, Muller ME. Classifications and aspects of treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus. In: Bateman JE, Welsh RP, editors. Surgery of the shoulder. Philadelphia: BC Decker; 1984. p. 330–43.

  12. Tamai K, Hamada J, Ohno W, Saotome K. Surgical anatomy of multipart fractures of the proximal humerus. J Should Elb Surg. 2002;11:421–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Meyer DC, Espinosa N, Hertel R. Combined fracture of the greater and lesser tuberosities with intact connection of the humeral head to the shaft. J Trauma. 2006;61:206–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bahrs C, Schmal H, Lingenfelter E, Rolauffs B, Weise K, Dietz K, Helwig P. Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the MTM-classification for proximal humeral fractures: a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Habermeyer P. Fracture of the head of the humerus. Unfallchirurg. 1997;100:820–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bahrs C, Schmal H, Lingenfelter E, Rolauffs B, Weise K, Dietz K, Helwig P. Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the MTM-classification for proximal humeral fractures: a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mittlmeier TW, Stedtfeld HW, Ewert A, Beck M, Frosch B, Gradl G. Stabilization of proximal humeral fractures with an angular and sliding stable antegrade locking nail (Targon PH). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 4:136–46.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Leunig M. Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Should Elb Surg. 2004;13:427–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Edelson G, Kelly I, Vigder F, Reis ND. A three-dimensional classification for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:413–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Sievanen H, Parkkari J. Rate of proximal humeral fractures in older Finnish women between 1970 and 2007. Bone. 2009;44:656–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R. Remaining lifetime and absolute 10-year probabilities of osteoporotic fracture in Swiss men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:1131–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Neer CS 2nd. Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Should Elb Surg. 2002;11:389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden. Bevölkerung Deutschlands bis 2060. Begleitmaterial zur Pressekonferenz Berlin 18 November 2009.

  24. Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ. Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Should Elb Surg. 2008;17:42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Misra A, Kapur R, Maffulli N. Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults—a systematic review of management. Injury. 2001;32:363–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P. Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Should Elb Surg. 2009;18:837–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;CD000434.

  28. Bahrs C, Badke A, Rolauffs B, Weise K, Zipplies S, Dietz K, Eingartner C. Long-term results after non-plate head-preserving fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:883–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mrs. Barbara Ketterle (M.A.) for the English translation of this publication

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG-Unfallklinik Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstr. 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Christian Bahrs, Michael Bauer, Alexander Tepass, Kuno Weise & Bernd Rolauffs

  2. Abteilung für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Sonja D. Bahrs

  3. Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Uhlandstr. 7, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany

    Christoph Eingartner

  4. Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Westbahnhofstr. 55, 72070, Tübingen, Germany

    Gunnar Blumenstock

Authors
  1. Christian Bahrs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gunnar Blumenstock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Eingartner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sonja D. Bahrs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Tepass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kuno Weise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bernd Rolauffs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Bahrs.

About this article

Cite this article

Bahrs, C., Bauer, M., Blumenstock, G. et al. The complexity of proximal humeral fractures is age and gender specific. J Orthop Sci 18, 465–470 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-013-0361-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-013-0361-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation