Comparison of the functional outcome of Philos Plate Vs. external fixator in the management of proximal humerus fracture

Hazrat Akbar, Umar Faheem, Bilal Hassan Khan, Zaigham Bajwa, Farasat Umar, Sajid Hussain, Zain Naseer, Asad Riaz, Syed Saifullah Shah, Nadeem Siraj
{"title":"Comparison of the functional outcome of Philos Plate Vs. external fixator in the management of proximal humerus fracture","authors":"Hazrat Akbar, Umar Faheem, Bilal Hassan Khan, Zaigham Bajwa, Farasat Umar, Sajid Hussain, Zain Naseer, Asad Riaz, Syed Saifullah Shah, Nadeem Siraj","doi":"10.30574/wjarr.2024.23.1.2106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Proximal humerus fractures, are a major medical issue that are relatively prevalent. 4-5% of all fractures are proximal humeral fractures, most of which involve older and osteoporotic individuals. Objectives: To compare the functional outcome of philos plate vs. external fixator in the management of proximal humerus fracture. Material and Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ghurki Trust Teaching Hospital, Lahore. From November 23, 2022, to May 23, 2023. After approval from the hospital's ethical board, 112(56 per group) patients were included in the study through an emergency. Informed consent was taken from parents. We stratified patients into two groups. Group A received the treatment of Philos, while Group B received the external fixator treatment. Functional outcome was assessed at the end of 3 months postoperatively using constant shoulder score. The collected data were entered and analyzed accordingly using SPSS version 27. Results: In the current study, a total of 112 patients included underwent two surgical interventions, among these, 56 patients underwent Philos plating while an equal number of patients underwent external fixation. In Group A and B, the majority were males (37:47) out of 112. The mean age of patients was equal in both groups (Group A=44.36±11.71), and the mean age of patients was (Group A=44.88±10.05), ranging from 20 to 80 years. In Group A, the average BMI was less than 24.29±4.23, ranging from 18-35 kg/m2, compared to Group B, 28.89±3.77, ranging from 22-35 kg/m2. 38(67.9%) were effected from right side as in Group A while 41(73.2%) were effected from right side in Group B. Majoruty 28(50.0%) had history of RTA in Group A while patients 24(42.9%) were observed with history of RTA in Group B25(44.6%) cases reported excellent outcome, 6(10.7%) reported very good outcome, 16(21.4%) good, 7(12.5%) fair and 2(3.6%) poor outcome in Group A. In Group B, 36(64.3%) excellent, 7(12.5%) very good, 12(21.4%) cases reported Good and 1(1%) reported fair outcome. So it is concluded that 25(44.6%) cases reported excellent outcome in Group A, comparatively low as compared to Group B 36(64.3%). Only age was significantly associated with excellent outcomes as p<.05. Conclusion: It is concluded that External fixation demonstrated a better outcome as compared to Philos Plating, so in Orthopaedic practice, External fixation should be preferred for patients diagnosed with proximal humerus fracture to get better results and reduce the complications.","PeriodicalId":23739,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.23.1.2106","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

Background: Proximal humerus fractures, are a major medical issue that are relatively prevalent. 4-5% of all fractures are proximal humeral fractures, most of which involve older and osteoporotic individuals. Objectives: To compare the functional outcome of philos plate vs. external fixator in the management of proximal humerus fracture. Material and Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ghurki Trust Teaching Hospital, Lahore. From November 23, 2022, to May 23, 2023. After approval from the hospital's ethical board, 112(56 per group) patients were included in the study through an emergency. Informed consent was taken from parents. We stratified patients into two groups. Group A received the treatment of Philos, while Group B received the external fixator treatment. Functional outcome was assessed at the end of 3 months postoperatively using constant shoulder score. The collected data were entered and analyzed accordingly using SPSS version 27. Results: In the current study, a total of 112 patients included underwent two surgical interventions, among these, 56 patients underwent Philos plating while an equal number of patients underwent external fixation. In Group A and B, the majority were males (37:47) out of 112. The mean age of patients was equal in both groups (Group A=44.36±11.71), and the mean age of patients was (Group A=44.88±10.05), ranging from 20 to 80 years. In Group A, the average BMI was less than 24.29±4.23, ranging from 18-35 kg/m2, compared to Group B, 28.89±3.77, ranging from 22-35 kg/m2. 38(67.9%) were effected from right side as in Group A while 41(73.2%) were effected from right side in Group B. Majoruty 28(50.0%) had history of RTA in Group A while patients 24(42.9%) were observed with history of RTA in Group B25(44.6%) cases reported excellent outcome, 6(10.7%) reported very good outcome, 16(21.4%) good, 7(12.5%) fair and 2(3.6%) poor outcome in Group A. In Group B, 36(64.3%) excellent, 7(12.5%) very good, 12(21.4%) cases reported Good and 1(1%) reported fair outcome. So it is concluded that 25(44.6%) cases reported excellent outcome in Group A, comparatively low as compared to Group B 36(64.3%). Only age was significantly associated with excellent outcomes as p<.05. Conclusion: It is concluded that External fixation demonstrated a better outcome as compared to Philos Plating, so in Orthopaedic practice, External fixation should be preferred for patients diagnosed with proximal humerus fracture to get better results and reduce the complications.
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
菲洛斯钢板与外固定器在治疗肱骨近端骨折中的功能效果比较
背景:肱骨近端骨折是一个相对普遍的重大医疗问题。肱骨近端骨折占所有骨折的 4-5%,其中大部分涉及老年人和骨质疏松患者。研究目的比较哲氏钢板与外固定器在治疗肱骨近端骨折中的功能效果。材料与方法:拉合尔 Ghurki Trust 教学医院骨外科开展了一项回顾性比较研究。研究时间为 2022 年 11 月 23 日至 2023 年 5 月 23 日。经医院伦理委员会批准,112 名(每组 56 名)患者通过急诊纳入研究。研究获得了患者父母的知情同意。我们将患者分为两组。A 组接受 Philos 治疗,B 组接受外固定器治疗。在术后 3 个月时,使用肩关节恒定评分法对患者的功能进行评估。收集到的数据使用 SPSS 27 版进行输入和分析。结果在本次研究中,共有112名患者接受了两种手术治疗,其中56名患者接受了Philos钢板固定术,而接受外固定术的患者人数相同。在A组和B组的112名患者中,男性占多数(37:47)。两组患者的平均年龄相同(A 组=44.36±11.71)岁,而 B 组患者的平均年龄为(A 组=44.88±10.05)岁,从 20 岁到 80 岁不等。A 组患者的平均体重指数(BMI)小于(24.29±4.23)kg/m2,范围在 18-35 kg/m2 之间;B 组患者的平均体重指数(BMI)为(28.89±3.77)kg/m2,范围在 22-35 kg/m2 之间。A 组有 38 例(67.9%)患者右侧髋关节受累,B 组有 41 例(73.2%)患者右侧髋关节受累。在 B 组中,36 例(64.3%)报告结果为优秀,7 例(12.5%)报告结果为非常好,12 例(21.4%)报告结果为良好,1 例(1%)报告结果为一般。因此可以得出结论,A 组中有 25 例(44.6%)报告结果为优秀,与 B 组的 36 例(64.3%)相比相对较低。只有年龄与优良结果有明显关系,P<.05。结论因此,在骨科实践中,肱骨近端骨折患者应首选外固定术,以获得更好的疗效并减少并发症。
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
0
期刊最新文献
The relationship between income from fish farming and pupil’s retention in primary schools in Amolator district, Uganda A GIS-based land suitability assessment of wheat production in Kano using selected physical parameters Nanotechnology applications in breast implant manufacturing for improved durability and functionality Challenges and perspectives of total hip arthroplasty in young adults: A study of 74 patients The influence of the workplace environment on the behavior of health workers who breastfeed in Kupang Regency
×
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