Outcome of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Humerus Complex Fractures

Chanchal Kumar Singh, G. Khare, Prabhanjan Agrawal
{"title":"Outcome of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Humerus Complex Fractures","authors":"Chanchal Kumar Singh, G. Khare, Prabhanjan Agrawal","doi":"10.4103/jodp.jodp_24_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n This study compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of complex proximal humerus fractures.\n \n \n \n Neer three- and four-part fracture-dislocations, surgical neck fracture-dislocations with severe articular impaction, and any head-split fracture treated surgically at our institution were studied retrospectively. Constant–Murley scores, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores were obtained and compared between ORIF versus HA treatment.\n \n \n \n Thirty patients were included in the analysis: 15 treated with ORIF were compared to 15 treated with HA with an average follow-up of 60 months. The mean Constant score (72 ± 15 vs. 54 ± 19; P = 0.005), DASH score (13 ± 17 vs. 29 ± 18; P = 0.006), ASES score (87 ± 13 vs. 66 ± 22; P = 0.003), and SF-36 physical composite score (PCS) (50 ± 11 vs. 40 ± 11; P = 0.02) all favored the ORIF group. Because of the potential confounding variable posed by including younger patients, we performed a subgroup analysis of patients older than 50 years. In this group, the Constant, DASH, ASES, and PCS scores remained significantly better in the ORIF group.\n \n \n \n Results of this retrospective study show improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life scores in patients undergoing ORIF for complex proximal humerus fractures as compared to patients undergoing HA, despite a higher revision rate in the ORIF cohort. When considering patients older than 50 years, outcomes after ORIF were better than HA.\n","PeriodicalId":34809,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology","volume":"105 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jodp.jodp_24_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of complex proximal humerus fractures. Neer three- and four-part fracture-dislocations, surgical neck fracture-dislocations with severe articular impaction, and any head-split fracture treated surgically at our institution were studied retrospectively. Constant–Murley scores, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores were obtained and compared between ORIF versus HA treatment. Thirty patients were included in the analysis: 15 treated with ORIF were compared to 15 treated with HA with an average follow-up of 60 months. The mean Constant score (72 ± 15 vs. 54 ± 19; P = 0.005), DASH score (13 ± 17 vs. 29 ± 18; P = 0.006), ASES score (87 ± 13 vs. 66 ± 22; P = 0.003), and SF-36 physical composite score (PCS) (50 ± 11 vs. 40 ± 11; P = 0.02) all favored the ORIF group. Because of the potential confounding variable posed by including younger patients, we performed a subgroup analysis of patients older than 50 years. In this group, the Constant, DASH, ASES, and PCS scores remained significantly better in the ORIF group. Results of this retrospective study show improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life scores in patients undergoing ORIF for complex proximal humerus fractures as compared to patients undergoing HA, despite a higher revision rate in the ORIF cohort. When considering patients older than 50 years, outcomes after ORIF were better than HA.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肱骨近端复杂骨折的切开复位和内固定术与半关节成形术的疗效对比
本研究比较了切开复位内固定术(ORIF)和半关节成形术(HA)在治疗复杂肱骨近端骨折中的效果。 本研究以回顾性方式研究了本院接受过手术治疗的Neer三部分和四部分骨折脱位、伴有严重关节嵌顿的手术颈骨折脱位以及任何头劈裂骨折。研究人员获得了Constant-Murley评分、手臂、肩部和手部残疾(DASH)评分、美国肩肘外科医生(ASES)肩部评分以及36项短式健康调查(SF-36)评分,并对ORIF与HA治疗进行了比较。 30名患者参与了分析:15名患者接受了ORIF治疗,15名患者接受了HA治疗,平均随访时间为60个月。平均 Constant 评分(72 ± 15 vs. 54 ± 19;P = 0.005)、DASH 评分(13 ± 17 vs. 29 ± 18;P = 0.006)、ASES 评分(87 ± 13 vs. 66 ± 22;P = 0.003)和 SF-36 体力综合评分(PCS)(50 ± 11 vs. 40 ± 11;P = 0.02)均有利于 ORIF 组。由于纳入年轻患者可能会带来混杂变量,我们对 50 岁以上的患者进行了亚组分析。在该组患者中,ORIF 组的 Constant、DASH、ASES 和 PCS 评分仍然明显优于 ORIF 组。 这项回顾性研究结果表明,与接受HA治疗的患者相比,接受ORIF治疗的复杂肱骨近端骨折患者的患者报告结果和生活质量评分均有所改善,尽管ORIF组患者的翻修率较高。如果考虑到年龄在50岁以上的患者,ORIF术后的疗效要优于HA术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Functional and Radiological Outcomes of Conservative Treatment of Upper Limb Diaphyseal and Metaphyseal Fractures (Humerus, Radius, and Ulna) with Extension Casting Outcome of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Humerus Complex Fractures Percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty using calcium phosphate cement for osteoporotic vertebral fractures: A prospective study of functional outcomes A prospective and retrospective study of the outcome of high tibial osteotomy in osteoarthritis of the knee with varus deformity Randomized clinical trial to assess functional outcome and complication of surgical neck humerus fracture (two part and three part) treated by percutaneous K-wire fixation and Philos plating
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1