Selective Glenohumeral external rotation deficit - sequelae of post-ORIF deltoid adhesions after treatment of the proximal humerus fracture

How to treat stiffness after proximal humeral fractures?

Shoulder stiffness is a frequent complication after proximal humeral fractures treated with or without surgery. Shoulder stiffness is associated with high rates of absence from work and a significant financial burden for the healthcare system. Secondary stiffness is characterized by additional extracapsular adhesions, including subacromial, subcoracoid, and subdeltoid spaces, usually derived from post-fracture or post-surgical extraarticular hematomas. Several secondary causes may coexist with capsular and extracapsular adhesions decreasing the shoulder motion, such as malunion, nonunion, metalwork failure, infection, and osteoarthritis, among others. Conservative treatment, usually prescribed for primary shoulder stiffness, has shown unfavorable results in secondary stiffness, and surgical intervention may be required. Surgical interventions need to be patient-specific. Usually, open or arthroscopic fibro-arthrolysis and subacromial release are performed, together with plate removal and biceps tenotomy/tenodesis. In severe osteoarthritis, shoulder replacement may be indicated. Ruling out infection is recommended in every case.

Functional outcomes before and after implant removal in patients with posttraumatic shoulder stiffness and healed proximal humerus fractures: does implant material (PEEK vs. titanium) have an impact? - a pilot study

Background

Posttraumatic shoulder stiffness remains a problem after proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite good healing rates. The aim of this pilot study was to determine whether the implant material and overlying soft tissue have an effect on shoulder range of motion (ROM) before and after implant removal (IR).

Methods

16 patients (mean age 55.2 ± 15.3 (SD) years; 62.5% female) were included who underwent operative treatment with locking plates of either carbon fiber reinforced Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (PEEKPower® humeral fracture plate, Arthrex, Naples, Florida, USA, n = 8) or titanium alloy (Ti) (Philos®, DePuy Synthes, Johnson & Johnson Medical, Raynham, Massachusetts, USA, n = 8) for PHF. All patients presented with a limited ROM and persistent pain in everyday life after the fracture had healed, whereupon IR was indicated. ROM before and after IR were compared as well as the Constant Score (CS) and the CS compared to the contralateral shoulder (%CS) 1 year after IR.

Results

In group PEEK, elevation was 116.3° ± 19.2° pre- and 129.4° ± 23.7° post-IR (p = 0.027). External rotation was 35.0° ± 7.6° pre- and 50.6° ± 21.8° post-IR (p = 0.041). External rotation with the humerus abducted 90° was 38.8° ± 18.1° pre- and 52.5° ± 25.5° post-IR (p = 0.024). In group Ti, elevation was 110.0° ± 34.6° pre- and 133.8° ± 31.1° post-IR (p = 0.011). External rotation with the humerus at rest was 33.8° ± 23.1° pre- and 48.8° ± 18.7° post-IR (p = 0.048). External rotation with the humerus abducted 90° was 40.0° ± 31.6° pre- and 52.5° ± 22.5° post-IR (p = 0.011). Comparison of the two implant materials showed no significant difference. The overall CS was 90.3 ± 8.8, the %CS was 91.8% ± 14.7%.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in ROM, CS and %CS with respect to plate materials, although lower cell adhesion is reported for the hydrophobic PEEK. However, all patients showed improved functional outcomes after IR in this pilot study. In patients with shoulder stiffness following locked plating for PHF, implants should be removed and open arthrolysis should be performed, independently from the hardware material.

Level of evidence

II

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05061-x.