Results of a differential approach to surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in patients with osteoporosis

Authors

  • Mykola Korzh Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0489-3104
  • Vasyl Makarov Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0936-7039
  • Igor Gupalov Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine, Ukraine
  • Olena Pertseva Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine, Ukraine
  • Konstantin Boyko Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine, Ukraine
  • Olga Pidgaiska Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5025-977X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720223-413-21

Keywords:

Proximal humerus fracture, PHILOS, 3D-implant, polylactide, PLA, porous Titanium, DLC Coating, PEEK, reverse shoulder total arthroplasty, osteoporosis

Abstract

Objective. To conduct a comparative retrospective analysis of the anatomical and functional results of surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures AO/OTA 11-B, 11-C using different methods in patients over 50 years old with osteoporosis to justify a differential approach. Methods. The study included 102 patients aged 50 years and older with osteoporosis and proximal humerus fractures AO/OTA 11-B, 11-C. The patients were divided into three groups: I — 50 (16 men, 34 women) whom were performed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with the PHILOS plate; II — 44 (8 men, 36 women) — ORIF with the PHILOS plate and using 3D polylactide (PLA) porous implants were applied; III — 8 (2 men, 6 women) whom were performed primary reversed total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with developed total reversible endoprosthesis. The results of treatment were evaluated according to the Constant-Murley Shoulder Score system after 3, 6, 12 months. The results. Positive results in the first group were obtained in 72.0 % of patients (the average Constant-Murley Shoulder Score after 12 months was 78.4 points); in the second — in 81.8 % (88.0 points); in the third — 75.0 % (82.0 points). A differentiated approach to the choice of surgical treatment of patients aged 50 years and older with fractures AO/OTA 11-B, 11-C is proposed. The clinical trial of the reverse total modular shoulder endoprosthesis developed by us using porous 3D titanium parts, manufactured by additive technologies, showed positive short-term results. The design features of the device increase the reliability and durability of proposed endoprosthesis. Conclusions. RTSA in the case of unstable proximal humerus fracture or in the case of metal structure migration after primary ORIF in patients with low bone mineral density is the effective surgical intervention that allows to achieve satisfactory functional results in up to 3 years.

Author Biographies

Mykola Korzh, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, Prof. in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Vasyl Makarov, Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine

MD, PhD in Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Igor Gupalov, Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine

MD

Olena Pertseva, Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine

MD

Konstantin Boyko, Municipal non-profit enterprise «City Clinical Hospital № 16» of the Dnipro City Council. Ukraine

MD

Olga Pidgaiska, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, PhD in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

References

  1. Samborski, S. A., Haws, B. E., Karnyski, S., Soles, G., Gorczyca, J. T., Nicandri, G., Voloshin, I., & Ketz, J. P. (2022). Outcomes for Type C Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Adult Population: Comparison of Nonoperative Treatment, Locked Plate Fixation, and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. JSES International, 6 (5), 755‒762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2022.05.006
  2. Sumrein, B. O., Huttunen, T. T., Launonen, A. P., Berg, H. E., Felländer-Tsai, L., & Mattila, V. M. (2016). Proximal humeral fractures in Sweden—a registry-based study. Osteoporosis International, 28(3), 901–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3808-z
  3. Patel, A. H., Wilder, J. H., Ofa, S. A., Lee, O. C., Iloanya, M. C., Savoie, F. H., & Sherman, W. F. (2022). How age and gender influence proximal humerus fracture management in patients older than fifty years. JSES International, 6(2), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.11.007
  4. McLean, A. S., Price, N., Graves, S., Hatton, A., & Taylor, F. J. (2019). Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 28(11), 2072–2078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.03.034
  5. Lin, C. C., Karlin, E., Boin, M. A., Dankert, J. F., Larose, G., Zuckerman, J. D., & Virk, M. S. (2022). Operative Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures with Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients ≥65 Years Old. JBJS Reviews, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.rvw.21.00245
  6. Klug, A., Gramlich, Y., Wincheringer, D., Schmidt-Horlohé, K., & Hoffmann, R. (2019). Trends in surgical management of proximal humeral fractures in adults: a nationwide study of records in Germany from 2007 to 2016. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 139(12), 1713–1721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03252-1
  7. Treatment of proximal humeral fractures - a review of cur-rent concepts enlightened by basic principles / D. Maier, M. Jäger, P. C. Strohm, N. P. Sudkamp // Acta Chirurgiae orthopaedicae et Traumatologiae Сechoslovaca. — 2012. — Vol. 79 (4). — P. 307‒316.
  8. Jo, Y.-H., Lee, K.-H., & Lee, B.-G. (2019). Surgical trends in elderly patients with proximal humeral fractures in South Korea: a population-based study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2515-2
  9. Campochiaro, G., Rebuzzi, M., Baudi, P., & Catani, F. (2015). Complex proximal humerus fractures: Hertel’s criteria reliability to predict head necrosis. MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, 99(S1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-015-0358-z
  10. Archer, L. A., & Furey, A. (2016). Rate of avascular necrosis and time to surgery in proximal humerus fractures. MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, 100(3), 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0425-0
  11. Boesmueller, S., Wech, M., Gregori, M., Domaszewski, F., Bukaty, A., Fialka, C., & Albrecht, C. (2016). Risk factors for humeral head necrosis and non-union after plating in proximal humeral fractures. Injury, 47(2), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.001
  12. Helfen, T., Siebenbürger, G., Mayer, M., Böcker, W., Ockert, B., & Haasters, F. (2016). Operative treatment of 2-part surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus (AO 11-A3) in the elderly: Cement augmented locking plate Philos™ vs. proximal humerus nail MultiLoc®. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1302-6
  13. Laux, C. J., Grubhofer, F., Werner, C. M. L., Simmen, H.-P., & Osterhoff, G. (2017). Current concepts in locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0639-3
  14. Korzh, M. O., Shidlovsky, M. S., Makarov, V. B., Zakhovayko, A. A., Tankut, O. V., Karpinsky, M. Y., Karpinskaya, O. D., & Chuprina, D. O. (2019). An experimental study of the mechanical properties of polylactide. TRAUMA, 20(6), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.6.20.2019.186029 (in Ukrainian)
  15. Makarov, V., Dedukh, N., & Nikolchenko, O. (2018). Osteoreparation around the polylactide, implanted into the metadiaphys defect of the femur (experimental study). ORTHOPAEDICS, TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (2), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720182102-107 (in russian)
  16. Korzh, M., Makarov, V., Tankut, О., & Pidgaiska, O. (2020). The results of clinical trial with polylactide implants for osteosynthesis of proximal humerus fractures in patients with osteoporosis. ORTHOPAEDICS, TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (4), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872019426-36 (in russian)
  17. Holschen, M., Siemes, M.-K., Witt, K.-A., & Steinbeck, J. (2018). Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The Bone & Joint Journal, 100-B(6), 761–766. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.100b6.bjj-2017-1280.r1
  18. Merolla, G., Wagner, E., Sperling, J. W., Paladini, P., Fabbri, E., & Porcellini, G. (2018). Revision of failed shoulder hemiarthroplasty to reverse total arthroplasty: analysis of 157 revision implants. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 27(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.06.038
  19. Vall, M., Natera, L., Witney-Lagen, C., Imam, M. A., Narvani, A. A., Sforza, G., Levy, O., Relwani, J., & Consigliere, P. (2022). Reverse shoulder replacement versus hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients: a systematic review. MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, 106 (4), 357‒367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-022-00761-y
  20. Boileau, P., Watkinson, D. J., Hatzidakis, A. M., & Balg, F. (2005). Grammont reverse prosthesis: Design, rationale, and biomechanics. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 14(1), S147—S161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006
  21. Kazley, J. M., Cole, K. P., Desai, K. J., Zonshayn, S., Morse, A. S., & Banerjee, S. (2019). Prostheses for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 16(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2019.1568237
  22. Smith, G. C. S., Bateman, E., Cass, B., Damiani, M., Harper, W., Jones, H., Lieu, D., Petchell, J., Petrelis, M., Piper, K., Sher, D., Smithers, C. J., Trantalis, J., Vrancic, S., & Harris, I. A. (2017). Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the treatment of Proximal humeral fractures in the Elderly (ReShAPE trial) : study protocol for a multicentre combined randomised controlled and observational trial. Trials, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1826-6
  23. Shannon, S. F., Wagner, E. R., Houdek, M. T., Cross, W. W., & Sánchez-Sotelo, J. (2016). Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: outcomes comparing primary reverse arthroplasty for fracture versus reverse arthroplasty after failed osteosynthesis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 25(10), 1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.012
  24. Ernstbrunner, L., Rahm, S., Suter, A., Imam, M. A., Catanzaro, S., Grubhofer, F., & Gerber, C. (2020). Salvage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures in patients younger than 60 years: long-term results. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 29(3), 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.040
  25. Grubhofer, F., Wieser, K., Meyer, D. C., Catanzaro, S., Schürholz, K., & Gerber, C. (2017). Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 26(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.020
  26. NEER, C. S. (1970). Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 52(6), 1077–1089. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197052060-00001.
  27. Brorson, S., Eckardt, H., Audigé, L., Rolauffs, B., & Bahrs, C. (2013). Translation between the Neer- and the AO/OTA-classification for proximal humeral fractures: do we need to be bilingual to interpret the scientific literature? BMC Research Notes, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-69
  28. Korzh, M., Makarov, V., Sabsay, A., Tankut, О., & Pidgayska, O. (2020). The results of open reduction and plate fixation with angular stability of the proximal humerus fractures in patients with osteoporosis. ORTHOPAEDICS, TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (3), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872020344-53
  29. Makarov, V. B., Korzh, M .O., Kovalev, A. M., Chupryna, D. O. (2021). Porous biodegradable implant. Pat. 147449 UA. A61F 2/04. (in Ukrainian)
  30. Ermakov, V. R., Nikitin, Yu. M., Grebennikov, K. O., Chupryna, D. O. (2021). Reversible total modular endoprosthesis of the shoulder joint. Pat. 147264 UA. (in Ukrainian)
  31. Osterhoff, G., Diederichs, G., Tami, A., Theopold, J., Josten, C., & Hepp, P. (2011). Influence of trabecular microstructure and cortical index on the complexity of proximal humeral fractures. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 132(4), 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1446-7
  32. J. W. den Teuling, B. S. Pauwels, L. Janssen [et al.] (2017). The influence of bone mineral density and cortical index on the complexity of fractures of the proximal humerus. Bone & Joint Research. Vol. 6, no. 10. P. 584–589. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.610.bjr-2017-0080
  33. Ban, I., Troelsen, A., Christiansen, D. H. [et al.] (2013). Standardised test protocol (Constant Score) for evaluation of functionality in patients with shoulder disorders. Danish Medical Journal, 60 (4), A4608.
  34. Vasiliev, V. V., Luchaninov, A. A., Strelnytskyi, V. E. (2018). Application of diamond-like coatings (APP) on the end surfaces of silicon carbide rings for dry gas-sealed high-pressure compressors. Problems of Atomic Science and Technology, No. 1 (113), 88‒92. (Serie : “Vacuum, pure materials, superconductors”). Available from: https://vant.kipt.kharkov.ua/TABFRAME2_themes.html
  35. Vasiliev, V. V., Strelnytskyi, V. E., Makarov, V. B. [et al.] (2022). DLC Coatings on Spherical Elements of HIP Endoprostheses. European Journal of Engineering and Formal Sciences, 5, 80‒88.
  36. Patel, A. H., Wilder, J. H., Ofa, S. A., Lee, O. C., Savoie, F. H., O’Brien, M. J., & Sherman, W. F. (2022). Trending a decade of proximal humerus fracture management in older adults. JSES International, 6(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.08.006
  37. Wendt, K. W., Jaeger, M., Verbruggen, J., Nijs, S., Oestern, H.-J., Kdolsky, R., & Komadina, R. (2020). ESTES recommendations on proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01437-7
  38. Weber, S., Grehn, H., Hutter, R., Sommer, C., & Haupt, S. (2022). Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture treatment: a retrospective functional outcome analysis. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03313-z
  39. Haupt, S., Weber, S., Frima, H., Hutter, R., Grehn, H., & Sommer, C. (2022b). Proximal humeral fracture-dislocation: Outcome analysis in osteosynthesis and arthroplasties. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-03183-x
  40. Shannon, S. F., Wagner, E. R., Houdek, M. T., Cross, W. W., & Sánchez-Sotelo, J. (2016b). Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: outcomes comparing primary reverse arthroplasty for fracture versus reverse arthroplasty after failed osteosynthesis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 25(10), 1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.012
  41. Larose, G., & Virk, M. S. (2022). The Evolution of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Its Current Use in the Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Older Population. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(19), 5832. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195832

Downloads

How to Cite

Korzh, M. ., Makarov, V. ., Gupalov, I. ., Pertseva, O. ., Boyko, K. ., & Pidgaiska, O. . (2023). Results of a differential approach to surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in patients with osteoporosis. ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (3-4), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720223-413-21

Issue

No. 3-4 (2022)

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).