The locking compression plate in periprosthetic humeral fractures A review of two cases

Challenges and Outcomes in the Management of Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures: A Retrospective Study and Review of Current Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic humeral fractures are a rare and increasing entity due to the rising number of shoulder arthroplasties. These fractures pose a significant challenge for surgeons, with incidence rates ranging from 1.2% to 19.4%. They can occur intraoperatively or as late complications, often influenced by trauma, prosthetic wear, or loosening.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on all patients admitted with periprosthetic humeral fractures over a four-year period (2018-2022). Inclusion criteria were postoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures with a minimum follow-up of six months. Exclusion criteria included intraoperative fractures, fractures of the glenoid or coracoid process, and cases with follow-up of less than six months or incomplete data.

RESULTS

The study included six patients with an average age of 83.1 years, predominantly female (four females and two males). All fractures occurred postoperatively: four on reverse shoulder prostheses, one on an anatomical prosthesis, and one on a hemiarthroplasty. The mechanism was low-energy trauma, with fractures occurring an average of 96 months post-initial surgery. Fractures were classified using the Campbell system: three in region 4, two in region 3, and one in region 2. Radiographs showed four cemented and two uncemented stems. Three patients underwent surgical treatment with either prosthetic replacement using a long stem and fracture cerclage or locking compression plate (LCP). The remaining three patients were treated conservatively with a Sarmiento brace due to advanced age, bone fragility, low functional demand, and comorbidities. Radial nerve palsy was a complication in two patients post-trauma, with one recovering fully and the other not recovering before death due to associated complications. All fractures consolidated within an average of seven months (range: 5-8 months). Functional recovery was satisfactory with a median Constant-Murley Shoulder Score of 69 in surgically treated patients, with range of motion between 100 and 140 degrees. Only two conservatively treated patients achieved fracture consolidation, and functional recovery was inadequate.

DISCUSSION

Managing periprosthetic humeral fractures remains challenging. Treatment goals include fracture healing, maintaining prosthetic stem stability, preserving glenohumeral motion, and restoring shoulder function. Despite various classification systems, the literature shows limited and variable data on incidence and treatment outcomes. Conservative treatment may be considered for stable implants and acceptable alignment, but surgical intervention is often necessary for displaced fractures or implant loosening.

CONCLUSION

The management of periprosthetic humeral fractures requires a tailored, multidisciplinary approach to optimize outcomes and improve patient quality of life. With the increasing incidence of these fractures due to the growing use of shoulder arthroplasty, ongoing research and development of new techniques and therapeutic strategies are essential to address this clinical challenge effectively.

Periprosthetic humerus fractures after shoulder arthroplasty: an evaluation of available classification systems

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic proximal humerus fractures (PPHFs) are a detrimental complication of shoulder arthroplasty, yet their characterization and management have been poorly studied. We aimed to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of 4 previously described PPHF classification systems to evaluate which classifications are the most consistent.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients (34 fractures) that were diagnosed with a PPHF between 1990 and 2017. Patient electronic medical records and research electronic data capture (REDCap) were used for data collection. Post-PPHF radiographs in multiple views for all 34 cases were organized into an encrypted, randomized Qualtrics survey. Four blinded fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons graded each fracture using previously reported classification systems by (1) Wright and Cofield (1995), (2) Campbell et al (1998), (3) Worland et al (1999), and (4) Groh et al (2008), along with selecting a preferred management strategy for each fracture. Grading was performed twice with at least 2 weeks between each randomized attempt. Intraobserver reliability was calculated as an unweighted Cohen kappa coefficient between attempt 1 and attempt 2 for each surgeon. Interobserver reliability and agreeability between surgeons' preferred management strategies were calculated for each classification system using Fleiss kappa coefficient. The kappa coefficients were interpreted using the Landis and Koch criteria.

RESULTS

The average intraobserver kappa coefficient for each classification was as follows: Wright and Cofield = 0.703, Campbell = 0.527, Worland = 0.637, Groh = 0.699. The overall Fleiss kappa coefficient for interobserver reliability for each classification was as follows: Wright and Cofield = 0.583, Campbell = 0.488, Worland = 0.496, Groh = 0.483. Interobserver reliability was significantly greater with the Wright and Cofield classification. Using Landis and Koch criteria, all the classification systems assessed demonstrated only moderate interobserver agreement. Additionally, the mean interobserver agreeability kappa coefficient for preferred management strategy was 0.490, indicating only moderate interobserver agreement.

CONCLUSION

There is only moderate interobserver reliability among the 4 PPHF classification systems and the preferred management strategy for the fractures assessed. Of the 4 PPHF classification systems, Wright and Cofield demonstrated the greatest mean intraobserver reliability and overall interobserver reliability. Our study highlights a need for the development of a PPHF classification system that can achieve high intra- and interobserver reliability and that can allow for a standardized treatment algorithm in the management of PPHFs.

Management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus : a systematic review

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and to assess the uniformity of the classifications used for these fractures (including those around elbow and/or shoulder arthroplasties) by performing a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Healthcare Databases Advance Search. For inclusion, studies had to report clinical outcomes following the management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database.

RESULTS

Overall, 40 studies were included, involving a total of 210 patients. The fractures were reported using very heterogeneous classification systems, as were the functional outcome scores. A total of 60 patients had nonoperative treatment with a 50% rate of nonunion. Fixation was undertaken in 99 patients; successful union was obtained in 93 (93%). Revision of either the humeral stem or the whole arthroplasty was reported in 79 patients with a high rate of union (n = 66; 84%), and a mean rate of complications of 29% (0% to 41%).

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted a lack of uniformity in classifying these fractures and reporting the outcome of their treatment. The results may help to inform decision-making with patients, particularly about the rate of complications of nonoperative treatment. There is a need to improve the reporting of the pattern of these fractures using a uniform classification system, and the harmonization of the collection of data relating to the outcome of treatment. Based on this review, we propose a minimum dataset to be used in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):416-423.

Surgical treatment of periprosthetic humerus fractures and algorithm

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic humerus fractures are infrequent and sometimes difficult to treat. There is limited literature and no consensus on the handling of these fractures. The objective of this study was to compare our results with those published in the literature, in order to improve our care and propose a management algorithm.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Observational study of 10cases of periprosthetic humerus fractures with a mean follow-up of the patients of 23months. An analysis of sociodemographic, radiological and surgical variables was performed. They were reviewed clinically and by telephone using the UCLA Shoulder Score and Quick-DASH scales. A systematic search was made in Pubmed for periprosthetic humerus fractures, for a literature review with which to compare our series.

RESULTS

We analysed 10patients with an average age of 69.4years (37-91). Of the patients, 90% underwent surgery through open reduction and internal fixation. Nine of the ten patients consolidated in a mean time of 6.2months (range 5-12), the remaining suffered a new fracture 5months after the intervention, who were reoperated and a new osteosynthesis performed with bone allograft. In the UCLA scale there was a decrease of 10.66points, and an increase of 27.3points in the Quick-DASH, at the end of the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series of cases we found similarities in the literature, in relation to demographic aspects and obtaining good radiographic results, which do not correspond to the functional outcome of patients.

Restoration of Humeral Bone Stock Two Years After Internal Fixation of a Periprosthetic Fracture with a Loose Stem: A Report of Two Cases

CASE

We describe 2 patients who sustained a periprosthetic humeral fracture with a loosened long-stemmed Coonrad-Morrey total elbow prosthesis. As noted in the literature, the success rate for a major revision with use of strut grafts is around 70%; therefore, both cases were managed without revision of the prosthesis. A submuscular locking plate was placed following typical fracture fixation principles. Screws that interfered with the humeral stem and the distal flange stabilized both the distal fragment and the humeral stem.

CONCLUSION

At 2 years postoperatively, both fractures had healed, with increased endosteal bone stock. In each case, the prosthesis was successfully salvaged, and radiographic reconstitution of the implant-bone interface was noted after 2 years.

Surgical Fixation of Periprosthetic Humerus Fractures Using an Extension Plate: Surgical Technique and Report of 5 Cases

Periprosthetic fractures after shoulder arthroplasty occur in up to 2% of patients. In patients with stable components who fail or cannot undergo nonoperative management, stable fixation is required. We present a new technique to obtain proximal fixation around the humeral component using a 4.5-mm large fragment plate and a 3.5-mm attachment plate.

[Periprosthetic humeral fractures: Strategies and techniques for osteosynthesis]

The prevalence of periprosthetic humeral fractures (PHF) is currently low and accounts for 0.6-2.4%. Due to an increase in the rate of primary implantations a quantitative increase of PHF is to be expected in the near future. The majority of PHF occur intraoperatively during implantation with an increased risk for cementless stems and when performing total arthroplasty. Additional risk factors are in particular female gender and the severity of comorbidities. In contrast, postoperative PHF mostly due to low-energy falls, have a prevalence between 0.6% and 0.9% and are significantly less common. The prognosis and functional outcome following revision by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) essentially depend on a thorough assessment of the indications for revision surgery, the operative treatment and the pretraumatic functional condition of the affected shoulder. In the armamentarium of periprosthetic ORIF of the humerus cerclage systems and locking implants as well as a combination of both play a central role. In comminuted fractures with extensive defect zones, severely thinned cortex or extensive osteolysis a biological augmentation of the ORIF should be considered. In this context when the indications are correctly interpreted, especially in the case of a stable anchored stem, various groups have reported that a high bony union rate can be achieved. As the treatment of PHF is complex it should be performed in dedicated centers in order to adequately address potential comorbidities, especially in the elderly population.

[Periprosthetic humeral fracture: complex circumstances need critical selection of therapy]

Although periprosthetic humeral fractures were previously rare injuries, they will increase because of the rising life expectancy of patients and increasing implantation of shoulder prostheses. This article describes a case of an 86-year-old female patient with very thin humeral cortex and a prosthesis filling the medullary cavity. The morphology of fractures and the surrounding circumstances determine choice of therapy.

Combining of small fragment screws and large fragment plates for open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic humeral fractures

Operative treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone requires a stable fixations technique. The combination of 3.5 cortical screws with washers in a 4.5 Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen, Limited-contact dynamic compression plate or Locking plate, allows a stable periprosthetic fixation with the small 3.5 screws and 4.5 screws above and below the prosthesis, respectively. This combination is a cost-effective technique to treat periprosthetic humeral fractures.

Analysis of factors predicting success and failure of treatment after type B periprosthetic humeral fractures: a case series study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate which factors predict the failure and success of treatment of periprosthetic type B humeral fractures that have occurred traumatically.

METHODS

The institutional admission database and the trauma registry were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 8 patients suffering from periprosthetic humeral fractures were included. The time span was 10 years (2000-2010).

RESULTS

The average age at the time of the fracture was 77 years. Surgery was performed at an average of 5.6 days after injury. In three patients with a well-fixed and one with an unstable humeral component, open reduction and internal fixation with the use of a plate and screws was performed. Two patients with a Delta prosthesis had an unstable humeral component. A proximal humeral resection and an implantation of an HMRS prosthesis was performed in one patient. The other patient received a Delta revision stem prosthesis, cable and plate fixation. Two patients were treated conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Early surgical treatment with angular stable implants in fractures with a stable stem and replacement with a revision long-stem component in fractures with a loose prosthesis is recommended. Special attention should be paid to bone quality and anatomical proximity to the radial nerve. Conservative treatment of type B fractures is not sufficient to achieve union, especially in short oblique or transverse fractures.

Internal fixation and strut allograft augmentation for periprosthetic humeral fractures

PURPOSE

To report 6 patients with periprosthetic humeral fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation with plate and strut allograft augmentation.

METHODS

6 women aged 69 to 79 (mean, 73) years underwent open reduction and internal fixation with plate and strut allograft augmentation for periprosthetic humeral fractures (type C) after a fall. They had undergone reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff arthropathy. The mean interval between the initial arthroplasty and the fracture was 17 (range, 11-21) months.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 14 (range, 12-16) months. The mean time to union was 5.4 (range, 4-6) months. All fractures united without complications. The mean Constant score at the last follow-up was 64 (range, 56-80). The range of shoulder movement and patient satisfaction were restored to pre-fracture status in all patients, except for one who had more pain in the lateral area of the arm (probably because of soft-tissue irritation by the plate and wires). Three patients had evidence of graft-to-host union and 3 others had graft resorption.

CONCLUSION

Internal fixation with plate, cable wires and strut allogaft augmentation achieves satisfactory results for periprosthetic humeral fractures.

Treatment of periprosthetic humerus fractures associated with shoulder arthroplasty

The incidence of periprosthetic humerus fracture associated with shoulder arthroplasty is approximately 0.6% to 3%. Fractures of the humerus occur most often intraoperatively and are more common during total shoulder arthroplasty than hemiarthroplasty because of difficulties in gaining access to the glenoid. Osteopenia, advanced age, female sex, and rheumatoid arthritis are medical comorbid factors that may contribute to humerus fractures and associated delayed healing and poorer function. When the humeral prosthetic component is loose or the fracture line overlaps the majority of the length of the prosthesis, revision with a long-stem implant should be considered. When the fracture overlaps the tip of the prosthesis and extends distally, open reduction and internal fixation is recommended. When the fracture is completely distal to the prosthesis and satisfactory alignment at the fracture site can be maintained with a fracture brace, then a trial of nonsurgical treatment is recommended. The primary goals of treatment are fracture union and pain relief. Loss of glenohumeral motion has limited the successful treatment of this challenging problem.