Complications after surgical management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of event terms and definitions

A network meta-analysis of multiple modalities for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in older adults

OBJECTIVE

Four principal treatment modalities are applied to treat complex proximal humeral fractures in older adults: conservative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. However, among these, the optimal treatment modality has yet to be determined. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was carried out to compare treatment modalities and assess their effectiveness.

METHODS

The databases PUBMED, EM-BASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and CNKI were searched for randomised controlled trials on complex proximal humeral fractures in older people, ranging from inception of each database to May 2023.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 14 randomised controlled trials, containing 791 patients aged over 60 years who were treated for complex proximal humeral fractures. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty yielded the highest Constant shoulder scores, whilst conservative treatment performed poorly. Hemiarthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation yielded the best performances on the visual analogue pain scale, whilst conservative treatment performed poorly. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation allowed for maximum forward flexion and outreach of range of motion, whilst hemiarthroplasty allowed for the least. Open reduction internal fixation and reverse shoulder arthroplasty allowed for maximum internal rotation of the range of motion, whilst conservative treatment allowed for the least. Hemiarthroplasty and conservative treatment allowed for maximum external rotation of the range of motion, whilst open reduction internal fixation allowed for the least.

CONCLUSION

Compared with open reduction internal fixation, reverse shoulder arthroplasty yields better Constant shoulder scores and allows for greater forward flexion and outreach of range of motion of the shoulder joint in complex proximal humerus fractures in older patients. Meanwhile, hemiarthroplasty yields the best visual analogue scale scores and allows for maximum external rotation of the range of motion. However, open reduction with internal fixation remains the preferred clinical treatment for complex proximal humeral fractures in older patients.

Comparison of the ALPS and PHILOS plating systems in proximal humeral fracture fixation - a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and plate osteosynthesis are considered as a successful technique for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite high complication rates. The objective of our study was to review the clinical outcome and complications of the Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) and compare it to the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS). Our hypothesis was that ranges of motion (ROM) were superior and complication rates were lower with ALPS.

METHODS

Twenty patients treated with ALPS for PHF were retrospectively compared to 27 patients treated with PHILOS. Union, ROM and complications were clinically and radiologically assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 18-24 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Mean age was 52 ± 14 in the ALPS group and 58 ± 13 in the PHILOS group. Last follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 20.6 ± 4.8 months. Mean shoulder abduction was superior with ALPS by 14° (p-value = 0.036), 15° (p-value = 0.049), and 15° (p-value = 0.049) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Mean shoulder external rotation was superior with ALPS by 11° (p-value = 0.032), 15° (p-value = 0.010) and 12° (p-value = 0.016) at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively. At the end of the follow-up, ROM remained better with ALPS, but not significantly. Complication rates over 21 months reached 20% with ALPS and 48% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.045). Implant removal rates reached 10% with ALPS and 37% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.036). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for hardware removal in the ALPS group.

CONCLUSION

The ALPS group showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF.

Functional results and unfavorable events after treatment of proximal humerus fractures using a new locking plate system

BACKGROUND

Proximal humerus fractures are often treated with a fixed-angle titanium plate osteosynthesis. Recently, plates made of alternative materials such as carbon fibre-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) have been introduced. This study presents the postoperative results of patients treated with a CFR-PEEK plate.

METHODS

Patients with proximal humerus fractures treated with a CFR-PEEK plate (PEEKPower™ Humeral Fracture Plate (HFP)) were included. In follow-up examination, age and gender adjusted Constant-Murley Score (ACS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QDASH) and pain score (Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) were analyzed. General condition at follow-up was measured by European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version (EQ-5D-3L). Range of motion was recorded. In addition, radiographs at follow-up, unfavorable events and revision rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 98 patients (66.0 ± 13.2 years, 74 females, 24 males) were reexamined. Mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 13.2 months. There were 15 2-part, 28 3-part and 55 4-part fractures. The functional scores showed good results: SSV 83.3 ± 15.6%, QDASH 13.1 ± 17.0 and ACS 80.4 ± 16.0. A 4-part-fracture, head split component, nonanatomic head shaft reposition and preoperative radiological signs of osteoarthritis were significant negative predictors for poorer clinical scores. Unfavourable events were observed in 27 patients (27.6%). Revision surgery was performed in 8 (8.2%) patients. Risk factors for an unfavourable event were female gender, age of 50 years and older, diabetes, affected dominant hand, 4-part fracture, head split and preoperative radiological signs of osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

There are several advantages of the CFR-PEEK plate (PEEKPower™ Humeral Fracture Plate (HFP)) such as the polyaxial screw placement and higher stability of locking screws. In summary, the CFR-PEEK plate osteosynthesis is a good alternative with comparable clinical results and some biomechanical advantages. Proximal humerus fractures show good clinical results after treatment with a CFR-PEEK plate. The revision rate and the risk of unfavorable events are not increased compared to conventional titanium plate osteosynthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the proximal humerus, often termed shoulder fractures, are common injuries, especially in older people. The management of these fractures varies widely, including in the use of surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of treatment and rehabilitation interventions for proximal humeral fractures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, and bibliographies of trial reports and systematic reviews to September 2020. We updated this search in November 2021, but have not yet incorporated these results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared non-pharmacological interventions for treating acute proximal humeral fractures in adults.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We prepared a brief economic commentary for one comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 trials (3179 participants, mostly women and mainly aged 60 years or over) that tested one of 26 comparisons. Six comparisons were tested by 2 to 10 trials, the others by small single-centre trials only. Twelve studies evaluated non-surgical treatments, 10 compared surgical with non-surgical treatments, 23 compared two methods of surgery, and two tested timing of mobilisation after surgery. Most trials were at high risk of bias, due mainly to lack of blinding. We summarise the findings for four key comparisons below. Early (usually one week post injury) versus delayed (after three or more weeks) mobilisation for non-surgically-treated fractures Five trials (350 participants) made this comparison; however, the available data are very limited. Due to very low-certainty evidence from single trials, we are uncertain of the findings of better shoulder function at one year in the early mobilisation group, or the findings of little or no between-group difference in function at 3 or 24 months. Likewise, there is very low-certainty evidence of no important between-group difference in quality of life at one year. There was one reported death and five serious shoulder complications (1.9% of 259 participants), spread between the two groups, that would have required substantive treatment. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment Ten trials (717 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (66% were three- or four-part fractures). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between surgical and non-surgical treatment in patient-reported shoulder function at one year (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.27; 7 studies, 552 participants) and two years (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.25; 5 studies, 423 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in patient-reported shoulder function at six months (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.38; 3 studies, 347 participants). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in quality of life at one year (EQ-5D (0: dead to 1: best quality): mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 6 studies, 502 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in mortality: one of the 31 deaths was explicitly linked with surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.62; 8 studies, 646 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of a higher risk of additional surgery in the surgery group (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.51; 9 studies, 667 participants). Based on an illustrative risk of 35 subsequent operations per 1000 non-surgically-treated patients, this indicates an extra 38 subsequent operations per 1000 surgically-treated patients (95% CI 8 to 94 more). Although there was low-certainty evidence of a higher overall risk of adverse events after surgery, the 95% CI also includes a slightly increased risk of adverse events after non-surgical treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31; 3 studies, 391 participants). Open reduction and internal fixation with a locking plate versus a locking intramedullary nail Four trials (270 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (63% were two-part fractures). There is low-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in shoulder function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.41; 4 studies, 227 participants), six months (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (0 to 100: worst disability): MD -0.39, 95% CI -4.14 to 3.36; 3 studies, 174 participants), or two years (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) (0 to 100: best outcome): MD 3.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 6.17; 2 studies, 101 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence of no between-group difference in quality of life (1 study), and of little difference in adverse events (4 studies, 250 participants) and additional surgery (3 studies, 193 participants). Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) versus hemiarthroplasty There is very low-certainty evidence from two trials (161 participants with either three- or four-part fractures) of no or minimal between-group differences in self-reported shoulder function at one year (1 study) or at two to three years' follow-up (2 studies); or in quality of life at one year or at two or more years' follow-up (1 study). Function at six months was not reported. Of 10 deaths reported by one trial (99 participants), one appeared to be surgery-related. There is very low-certainty evidence of a lower risk of complications after RTSA (2 studies). Ten people (6.2% of 161 participants) had a reoperation; all eight cases in the hemiarthroplasty group received a RTSA (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with non-surgical treatment, surgery does not result in a better outcome at one and two years after injury for people with displaced proximal humeral fractures. It may increase the need for subsequent surgery. The evidence is absent or insufficient for people aged under 60 years, high-energy trauma, two-part tuberosity fractures or less common fractures, such as fracture dislocations and articular surface fractures. There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to inform the choices between different non-surgical, surgical or rehabilitation interventions for these fractures.

Core set of unfavorable events of proximal humerus fracture treatment defined by an international Delphi consensus process

BACKGROUND

Proximal humerus fracture (PHF) complications, whether following surgery or nonoperative management, require standardization of definitions and documentation for consistent reporting. We aimed to define an international consensus core event set (CES) of clinically-relevant unfavorable events of PHF to be documented in clinical routine practice and research.

METHODS

A Delphi exercise was implemented with an international panel of experienced shoulder trauma surgeons selected by survey invitation of AO Trauma members. An organized list of PHF events after nonoperative or operative management was developed and reviewed by panel members using on-line surveys. The proposed core set was revised regarding event groups along with definitions, specifications and timing of occurrence. Consensus was reached with at least a two-third agreement.

RESULTS

The PHF consensus panel was composed of 231 clinicians worldwide who responded to at least one of two completed surveys. There was 93% final agreement about three intraoperative local event groups (device, osteochondral, soft tissue). Postoperative or nonoperative event terms and definitions organized into eight groups (device, osteochondral, shoulder instability, fracture-related infection, peripheral neurological, vascular, superficial soft tissue, deep soft tissue) were approved with 96 to 98% agreement. The time period for documentation ranged from 30 days to 24 months after PHF treatment depending on the event group and specification. The resulting consensus was presented on a paper-based PHF CES documentation form.

CONCLUSIONS

International consensus was achieved on a core set of local unfavorable events of PHF to foster standardization of complication reporting in clinical research and register documentation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Dynamic locking screws in proximal humeral plate osteosynthesis demonstrate superior fixation properties: a biomechanical study

Purpose

Angular stable implants reduced the complication rate in the treatment of humeral head fractures. But the failure rate is still high. To further reduce the risk of cut-out, cement augmentation of screws was introduced. A reason for failure of plate osteosynthesis might be the extremely high stiffness of the screw-plate interface leading to a loss of reduction and cut-out of screws. A more homogeneous distribution of the forces on all screws may avoid secondary dislocation. We hypothesize that dynamic osteosynthesis minimizes screw loosening and results in a higher load to failure than standard locking screws.

Methods

Twelve paired human humerus specimens were analysed. A standardized three-part fracture model with a metaphyseal defect was simulated. Within each pair of humeri, one was fixed with a Philos plate and standard locking screws (LS), whereas the other humerus was fixed with a Philos plate and dynamic locking screws (DLS). A cyclic varus-bending test or a rotation test with increasing loading force was performed until failure of the screw-bone-fixation.

Results

In the varus bending test, pairs failed by screw loosening in the humeral head. The LS-group reached 2901 (601–5201) load cycles until failure, while the DLS-group failed after 3731 (2001–5601) cycles. This corresponds to a median loading of 195 N for the LS-group and 235 N for the DLS-group (p = 0.028). In the rotation test the LS-group reached a median of 1101 (501–1501) load cycles until failure of fixation occurred, while the DLS-group failed after 1401 (401–2201) cycles (p = 0.225).

Conclusions

Plate fixation using dynamic locking screws for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures demonstrated more load cycles until failure compared to standard locking plate osteosynthesis.