Jiayong Liu, Logan J Roebke, Josh W Vander Maten, M. Tranovich, N. Ebraheim
{"title":"肱骨假体周围骨折及其合并症的外科治疗","authors":"Jiayong Liu, Logan J Roebke, Josh W Vander Maten, M. Tranovich, N. Ebraheim","doi":"10.15406/mojor.2021.13.00537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Periprosthetic humeral fractures represent a complex and rare complication. Currently, there is no standardized procedure for management or classification of these fractures. Questions/purposes: This unique case series purpose was to look at surgical outcomes and comorbidity profiles of 10 PHF patients. Subsequent analysis looked at whether these outcomes could add to the discussion of a proposed standard of care in a patient cohort with significant comorbidities. Patients and methods: All patients with humeral fractures from 2008-2019 were analyzed for inclusion. A total of ten patients met the inclusion criteria; humeral fracture concurrent with a shoulder arthroplasty. Each patient was managed surgically using a locking plate with or without cerclage wiring. Outcome analysis was then performed for each patient. Humoral fractures managed conservatively were removed from the dataset along with periprosthetic fractures around an elbow arthroplasty, IM nail, or supracondylar fracture after shoulder arthroplasty. Results: The average union time in all patients was 13.27±2.90 (9.86-17.29) weeks. There was no significant difference between patients treated with cerclage wiring or without. All patients had successful union except for a patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. There were two radial nerve palsies. The average Deyo-Charlson score and BMI was 7.1±.84 (4-13) and 29.89 respectively. Conclusion: The treatment of PHFs using the technique of ORIF with locking plate with or without cerclage wiring provides satisfactory outcomes in a patient population that usually includes significant comorbidities. Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study Level IV Retrospective Review.","PeriodicalId":91366,"journal":{"name":"MOJ orthopedics & rheumatology","volume":"543 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical treatments of patients with periprosthetic humeral fracture and comorbidities\",\"authors\":\"Jiayong Liu, Logan J Roebke, Josh W Vander Maten, M. Tranovich, N. Ebraheim\",\"doi\":\"10.15406/mojor.2021.13.00537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Periprosthetic humeral fractures represent a complex and rare complication. Currently, there is no standardized procedure for management or classification of these fractures. Questions/purposes: This unique case series purpose was to look at surgical outcomes and comorbidity profiles of 10 PHF patients. Subsequent analysis looked at whether these outcomes could add to the discussion of a proposed standard of care in a patient cohort with significant comorbidities. Patients and methods: All patients with humeral fractures from 2008-2019 were analyzed for inclusion. A total of ten patients met the inclusion criteria; humeral fracture concurrent with a shoulder arthroplasty. Each patient was managed surgically using a locking plate with or without cerclage wiring. Outcome analysis was then performed for each patient. Humoral fractures managed conservatively were removed from the dataset along with periprosthetic fractures around an elbow arthroplasty, IM nail, or supracondylar fracture after shoulder arthroplasty. Results: The average union time in all patients was 13.27±2.90 (9.86-17.29) weeks. There was no significant difference between patients treated with cerclage wiring or without. All patients had successful union except for a patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. There were two radial nerve palsies. The average Deyo-Charlson score and BMI was 7.1±.84 (4-13) and 29.89 respectively. Conclusion: The treatment of PHFs using the technique of ORIF with locking plate with or without cerclage wiring provides satisfactory outcomes in a patient population that usually includes significant comorbidities. Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study Level IV Retrospective Review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MOJ orthopedics & rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"543 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MOJ orthopedics & rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15406/mojor.2021.13.00537\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MOJ orthopedics & rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15406/mojor.2021.13.00537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Surgical treatments of patients with periprosthetic humeral fracture and comorbidities
Background: Periprosthetic humeral fractures represent a complex and rare complication. Currently, there is no standardized procedure for management or classification of these fractures. Questions/purposes: This unique case series purpose was to look at surgical outcomes and comorbidity profiles of 10 PHF patients. Subsequent analysis looked at whether these outcomes could add to the discussion of a proposed standard of care in a patient cohort with significant comorbidities. Patients and methods: All patients with humeral fractures from 2008-2019 were analyzed for inclusion. A total of ten patients met the inclusion criteria; humeral fracture concurrent with a shoulder arthroplasty. Each patient was managed surgically using a locking plate with or without cerclage wiring. Outcome analysis was then performed for each patient. Humoral fractures managed conservatively were removed from the dataset along with periprosthetic fractures around an elbow arthroplasty, IM nail, or supracondylar fracture after shoulder arthroplasty. Results: The average union time in all patients was 13.27±2.90 (9.86-17.29) weeks. There was no significant difference between patients treated with cerclage wiring or without. All patients had successful union except for a patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. There were two radial nerve palsies. The average Deyo-Charlson score and BMI was 7.1±.84 (4-13) and 29.89 respectively. Conclusion: The treatment of PHFs using the technique of ORIF with locking plate with or without cerclage wiring provides satisfactory outcomes in a patient population that usually includes significant comorbidities. Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study Level IV Retrospective Review.