Nonoperative Treatment for Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in Elderly Patients: Correlation Between Deviations and Clinical Outcomes^[*]

Abstract

Objectives To describe the functional result of the conservative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures (PHF) using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score after 12 months and assess whether the different initial classifications and radiographic measurements are related to clinical results.

Methods Forty patients > 60 years old, with displaced PHUs submitted to conservative treatment were evaluated at standardized times (3, 6, and 12 months). The American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant-Murley and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scales were used as clinical outcomes. Radiographic variables included the Neer and Resch classifications, the presence and displacement of tuberosity fracture, metaphyseal comminution, medial periosteal lesion, and angular and translational deviations of the head in the coronal and sagittal plane.

Results The result of the ASES score was 77.7 ± 23.2 for the whole sample, the mean absolute values of the Constant-Murley score were 68.7 ± 16 and 82.6% for the scale relative to the contralateral side. The SANE scale at 12 months was 84.8 ± 19. We observed that the severity of the Neer classification and the coronal plane angular deviation (measured by the head-shaft angle) and the presence of fractures in both tuberosities negatively influenced the ASES score after 12 months of treatment.

Conclusion Nonoperative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients results in good clinical results. Clinical results are negatively influenced by the angular deviation of the humeral head and the presence of fractures of the greater and lesser tubercles, as well as by the Neer classification.

Keywords

shoulder fractures - complications - conservative treatment - diagnostic imaging

Financial Support

There was no financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit sources.

^* Study developed at the Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Publication History

Received: 07 March 2020

Accepted: 06 July 2020

Article published online:
02 November 2020

• Referências

• 1 Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 442 (442) 87-92
• 2 Handoll HHG, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (11) CD000434
• 3 Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S. et al. PROFHER Trial Collaborators. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313 (10) 1037-1047
• 4 Majed A, Macleod I, Bull AMJ. et al. Proximal humeral fracture classification systems revisited. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (07) 1125-1132
• 5 Bernstein J, Adler LM, Blank JE, Dalsey RM, Williams GR, Iannotti JP. Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78 (09) 1371-1375
• 6 Gracitelli MEC, Dotta TAG, Assunção JH. et al. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in the classification and treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26 (06) 1097-1102
• 7 Krappinger D, Bizzotto N, Riedmann S, Kammerlander C, Hengg C, Kralinger FS. Predicting failure after surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 2011; 42 (11) 1283-1288
• 8 Foruria AM, de Gracia MM, Larson DR, Munuera L, Sanchez-Sotelo J. The pattern of the fracture and displacement of the fragments predict the outcome in proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (03) 378-386
• 9 Südkamp NP, Audigé L, Lambert S, Hertel R, Konrad G. Path analysis of factors for functional outcome at one year in 463 proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (08) 1207-1216
• 10 Siebenbürger G, Van Delden D, Helfen T, Haasters F, Böcker W, Ockert B. Timing of surgery for open reduction and internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures. Injury 2015; 46 (Suppl. 04) S58-S62
• 11 Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus. Epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83 (06) 799-804
• 12 Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. The impacted varus (A2.2) proximal humeral fracture: prediction of outcome and results of nonoperative treatment in 99 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75 (06) 736-740
• 13 Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM. Impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus. The results of non-operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (04) 504-508
• 14 Yüksel HY, Yılmaz S, Akşahin E, Celebi L, Muratli HH, Biçimoğlu A. The results of nonoperative treatment for three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in low-demand patients. J Orthop Trauma 2011; 25 (10) 588-595
• 15 Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, Stengel D. Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18 (04) 612-621
• 16 Malavolta EA, Assunção JH, Pagotto RA. et al. The rotation of the humeral head does not alter radiographic evaluation of the head-shaft angle. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (04) 543-547
• 17 Miyazaki AN, Fregoneze M, Santos PD. et al. Results of open reduction and internal fixation of severe fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients. Rev Bras Ortop 2014; 49 (01) 25-30
• 18 Gracitelli MEC, Lobo FL, Ferreira GMA. et al. Outcomes evaluation of locking plate osteosynthesis in displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. Rev Bras Ortop 2013; 48 (06) 491-499
• 19 Ferrel JR, Trinh TQ, Fischer RA. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29 (01) 60-68
• 20 Brandão BL, Amaral MVG, Cohen M. et al. Treatment of complex acute proximal humerus fractures using hemiarthroplasty. Rev Bras Ortop 2013; 48 (01) 29-35
• 21 Sabharwal S, Patel NK, Griffiths D, Athanasiou T, Gupte CM, Reilly P. Trials based on specific fracture configuration and surgical procedures likely to be more relevant for decision making in the management of fractures of the proximal humerus: Findings of a meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5 (10) 470-480
• 22 Neer II CS. Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11 (04) 389-400
• 23 Resch H, Tauber M, Neviaser RJ. et al. Classification of proximal humeral fractures based on a pathomorphologic analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (03) 455-462
• 24 Assunção JH, Malavolta EA, Beraldo RA, Gracitelli MEC, Bordalo-Rodrigues M, Ferreira Neto AA. Impact of shoulder rotation on neck-shaft angle: A clinical study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017; 103 (06) 865-868
• 25 Osterhoff G, Hoch A, Wanner GA, Simmen HP, Werner CML. Calcar comminution as prognostic factor of clinical outcome after locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Injury 2012; 43 (10) 1651-1656
• 26 Ponce BA, Thompson KJ, Raghava P. et al. The role of medial comminution and calcar restoration in varus collapse of proximal humeral fractures treated with locking plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (16) e113 , 1–7