Proximal humerus fractures: A review of current practice

The management of proximal humeral fractures (PHF) remains controversial. Its incidence is increasing. Patients should be meticulously assessed clinically for co-morbidities and neuro-vascular injuries. Radiological investigation helps provide information on the fracture configuration and dislocations. Enhanced by 3-dimensional CT scanning, these further help in decision making and operative planning. PHF classifications have been demonstrated to have poor intra-observer and inter-observer reliability. Research has identified some radiographic predictive factors for humeral head ischaemia and likely failure of surgical fixation. The range of management options include non-operative treatment, operative fixation, intramedullary nailing and arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, reverse shoulder replacement). The majority of PHFs are stable injuries and non-operative management is usually successful. Some degree of malunion is readily tolerated especially by elderly patients. Surgical management of significantly displaced, unstable proximal humerus fractures should aim to stabilise the fracture adequately and provide satisfactory function for the long term. Management of the greater tuberosity is pivotal for the eventual outcome. When fixation may appear to be compromised by poor bone quality, likely poor function, age related rotator cuff degeneration or likely humeral head ischaemia clinicians may opt for arthroplasty. Successful hemiarthroplasty outcomes are dependent on sufficient healing of the tuberosity and recovery of the rotator cuff integrity. Reverse shoulder replacement can predictably deliver good functional outcomes for the shoulder in elderly patients, where rotator cuff dysfunction is suspected or as a revision procedure following failure of other surgical interventions. As opposed to hemiarthroplasty, which has shown a downward trend, there has been an increasing trend towards the use of reverse shoulder replacement in proximal humeral fractures. The management of PHFs should be patient specific, fracture specific and meet the functional demands and needs of the individual patient. The surgeon's skill set and clinical experience also plays an important role in the options of management available.

Obesity and recurrent intervertebral disc prolapse after lumbar microdiscectomy

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between obesity and recurrent intervertebral disc prolapse (IDP) following lumbar microdiscectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of case notes from 2008 to 2012 was conducted for all patients who underwent single level lumbar microdiscectomy performed by a single surgeon. All patients were followed up at two weeks and six weeks following surgery, and given an open appointment for a further six months.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were available for analysis: 190 (67%) were in the non-obese group and 93 (32.9%) in the obese group. There was no statistical difference in postoperative infection, dural tear or length of stay between the non-obese and obese groups. Recurrent symptomatic IDP was seen in 27 patients (9.5%) confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. Nineteen (10.0%) were in the non-obese group and eight (8.6%) in the obese group (p>0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, obesity was not a predictor of recurrent IDP following lumbar microdiscectomy. Our literature review confirmed that this study reports the largest series to date analysing the relationship between obesity and recurrent IDP following lumbar microdiscectomy in the British population.