Intramedullary versus locking plate fixation for proximal humerus fractures: indications and technical considerations

Osteoporosis Management for Shoulder Surgeons

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to aggregate currently available literature as it pertains to treating surgical shoulder pathology in patients with osteoporosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging data surrounding perioperative use of anti-osteoporosis medications for patients undergoing shoulder surgery have not shown definitively favorable or unfavorable outcomes. Similar evaluations in animal studies have shown promising results as a biologic augment to tendon and bone healing, especially with newer, anabolic agents. The mainstay of bone health management remains pre-operative evaluation, using opportunistic radiographic and CT based validated measurements, along with optimization of risk factors. Surgical techniques continue to incorporate implants that perform well in osteopenic bone. Promising pre-clinical studies have identified anabolic anti-osteoporosis medications as viable biologic augments to shoulder surgery, which has not been borne out in any clinical studies at this time.

Three- or four-part proximal humeral fractures in middle-aged and active elderly group of patients: a narrative review of treatment options

Background and Objective

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) occur in all age groups but more in elderly population with variety of treatment options. The choice of treatment of PHFs is rather controversial in the middle-aged and active elderly population. This review article highlights the current literature on the efficacy of treatment options for PHFs in middle-aged and active elderly patients which could help surgeons in decision making in clinical practice.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus databases from January 1953 to February 2024 were searched and screened for studies, including systematic reviews, on the treatment of PHFs in middle-aged and elderly that served for narrative review of rationale behind such design.

Key Content and Findings

Patients with minimally displaced fractures should be treated nonoperatively. Internal fixation with intramedullary nailing is a viable option in cases of two-part surgical neck fractures, those with diaphyseal involvement and no significant displacement of the tuberosities, or pathologic fractures. Those elderly patients with displaced three- or four-part PHFs fractures with intact rotator cuff muscles should be treated with locking plate fixation if anatomical reduction of fracture fragments including tuberosity is possible, as the results after union despite avascular necrosis are favorable. Moreover, patients with failed fixation treated with salvage reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have similar outcomes to RSA for acute PHFs. Hemiarthroplasty should be reserved for select group of young active patients with unconstructable fracture, intact rotator cuff, and good tuberosity bone stock. RSA should be offered as first option for elderly patients with poor bone stock, rotator cuff insufficiency, fracture dislocations, head-split fractures, and severely displaced 3- and 4-part PHFs.

Conclusions

The treatment of choice in middle-aged and active elderly patients with three- or four-part PHFs depends on several factors such as fracture pattern, bone quality, possibility of anatomical reduction, status of rotator cuff, and patient expectations. The success of treatment is based on patient selection while setting correct patient expectations.

Augmented versus non-augmented locking-plate fixation in proximal humeral fractures

Aims

Proximal humeral fractures are the third most common fracture among the elderly. Complications associated with fixation include screw perforation, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. To address these challenges, various augmentation techniques to increase medial column support have been developed. There are currently no recent studies that definitively establish the superiority of augmented fixation over non-augmented implants in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or bone-graft augmentation versus those who underwent locking-plate fixation without augmentation for proximal humeral fractures.

Methods

The search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Articles involving patients with complex proximal humeral fractures treated using open reduction with locking-plate fixation, with or without augmentation, were considered. A meta-analysis of comparative studies comparing locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or with bone-graft augmentation versus locking-plate fixation without augmentation was performed.

Results

A total of 19 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and six comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 120 patients received locking-plate fixation with bone-graft augmentation, 179 patients received locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation, and 336 patients received locking-plate fixation without augmentation. No statistically relevant differences between the augmented and non-augmented cohorts were found in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score and Constant-Murley Score. The cement-augmented group had a significantly lower rate of complications compared to the non-augmented group.

Conclusion

While locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation appears to produce a lower complication rate compared to locking-plate fixation alone, functional outcomes seem comparable between augmented and non-augmented techniques.