Displaced proximal humeral fractures: When is surgery necessary?
Abstract Background Several therapeutic methods have been traditionally used in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures; however, the indication of these treatments is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the medium-term functional results of four methods commo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Injury 2015-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1921-1929 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1929 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1921 |
| container_title | Injury |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Tamimi, Iskandar Montesa, Guillermo Collado, Francisco González, David Carnero, Pablo Rojas, Facundo Nagib, Mohamed Pérez, Verónica Álvarez, Miguel Tamimi, Faleh |
| description | Abstract Background Several therapeutic methods have been traditionally used in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures; however, the indication of these treatments is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the medium-term functional results of four methods commonly used in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures [conservative treatment, proximal humeral nails (PHN), percutaneous K-wiring (PKW), and locking-plates (LP)] taking into consideration the type of fracture and the age of the patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients with proximal humeral fractures treated with one of the following methods: conservative treatment, PHN, PKW, or LP. Functional results were assessed using the absolute Constant score and the disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand score (DASH). The functional outcome was analysed according to age (≥65 years and |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.049 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1718906447</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0020138315003290</els_id><sourcerecordid>1718906447</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-739e9c8e78961325ffd707dae52ecbfddd21a10008668ef5c6bb19f98b08a3053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EotvCP0AoRy5ZZuwktjnwoZYvqRIHQBwtx5lQh2yy9WwQ-fd4tYUDF6SRXo30ztczQjxB2CJg83zYxmlY0rqVgPUWclT2ntig0bYE2ej7YgMgoURl1Jk4Zx4AUINSD8WZbFDmzGzE66vI-9EH6op9mn_FnR-Lm2VHKWuffDgsifhF8e2GpiJywUv6TmktJgrE7NP66pF40PuR6fGdXoiv795-ufxQXn96__HyzXUZKqMPpVaWbDCkjW1QybrvOw2681RLCm3fdZ1EjwBgmsZQX4embdH21rRgvIJaXYhnp755zduF-OB2kQONo59oXtihRmOhqSqdrdXJGtLMnKh3-5QPS6tDcEd2bnAndu7IzkGOyuayp3cTlnZH3d-iP7Cy4eXJQPnOn5GS4xBpyuxionBw3Rz_N-HfBmGMUwx-_EEr8TAvacoMHTqWDtzn4_-O78MaQEkL6jdApZa5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1718906447</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Displaced proximal humeral fractures: When is surgery necessary?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Tamimi, Iskandar ; Montesa, Guillermo ; Collado, Francisco ; González, David ; Carnero, Pablo ; Rojas, Facundo ; Nagib, Mohamed ; Pérez, Verónica ; Álvarez, Miguel ; Tamimi, Faleh</creator><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Iskandar ; Montesa, Guillermo ; Collado, Francisco ; González, David ; Carnero, Pablo ; Rojas, Facundo ; Nagib, Mohamed ; Pérez, Verónica ; Álvarez, Miguel ; Tamimi, Faleh</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Several therapeutic methods have been traditionally used in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures; however, the indication of these treatments is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the medium-term functional results of four methods commonly used in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures [conservative treatment, proximal humeral nails (PHN), percutaneous K-wiring (PKW), and locking-plates (LP)] taking into consideration the type of fracture and the age of the patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients with proximal humeral fractures treated with one of the following methods: conservative treatment, PHN, PKW, or LP. Functional results were assessed using the absolute Constant score and the disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand score (DASH). The functional outcome was analysed according to age (≥65 years and <65 years) and fracture type (displaced 2-fragment and 3–4-fragment fractures). Results A total of 113 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 65.3 SD 15.2 years and average follow-up time of 26.2 SD 12.6 months. Patients under 65 years had higher Constant scores when treated with PHN and PKW than those treated conservatively (77.2 vs. 54.7, p = 0.01 and 74.0 vs. 54.7, p = 0.03, respectively). Patients above 65 years had higher Constant scores when treated with PKW compared to PHN and conservative treatment (68.7 vs. 51.9, p = 0.02 and 68.7 vs. 55.9, p = 0.029, respectively). In 2-fragment fractures, PKW resulted in higher Constant scores than conservative treatment (70.4 vs. 53.9, p = 0.048). No differences were found in the final outcome between patients treated with LP and those treated conservatively regardless of age, and fracture type. There were also no differences between any of the evaluated methods in the treatment of 3–4-fragment fractures. Conclusion The use of PKW was associated with better functional results than conservative treatment in individuals of all ages, especially in patients with 2-fragment fractures; PKW also achieved better functional results than PHN in elderly patients. PHN was superior to conservative treatment in young individuals. No significant differences were found between LP and conservative treatment in any of the analysed categories.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0267</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.049</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26120018</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Age ; Age Factors ; Bone Plates ; Bone Wires ; Conservative treatment ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods ; Fracture Healing ; Fracture type ; Functional outcome ; Humans ; Immobilization - methods ; Kirschner wires ; Locking plate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Proximal humeral nail ; Proximal humerus fracture ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Recovery of Function ; Retrospective Studies ; Shoulder Fractures - diagnostic imaging ; Shoulder Fractures - physiopathology ; Shoulder Fractures - surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Injury, 2015-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1921-1929</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-739e9c8e78961325ffd707dae52ecbfddd21a10008668ef5c6bb19f98b08a3053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-739e9c8e78961325ffd707dae52ecbfddd21a10008668ef5c6bb19f98b08a3053</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.049$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26120018$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Iskandar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montesa, Guillermo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collado, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carnero, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rojas, Facundo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagib, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez, Verónica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Álvarez, Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Faleh</creatorcontrib><title>Displaced proximal humeral fractures: When is surgery necessary?</title><title>Injury</title><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Several therapeutic methods have been traditionally used in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures; however, the indication of these treatments is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the medium-term functional results of four methods commonly used in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures [conservative treatment, proximal humeral nails (PHN), percutaneous K-wiring (PKW), and locking-plates (LP)] taking into consideration the type of fracture and the age of the patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients with proximal humeral fractures treated with one of the following methods: conservative treatment, PHN, PKW, or LP. Functional results were assessed using the absolute Constant score and the disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand score (DASH). The functional outcome was analysed according to age (≥65 years and <65 years) and fracture type (displaced 2-fragment and 3–4-fragment fractures). Results A total of 113 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 65.3 SD 15.2 years and average follow-up time of 26.2 SD 12.6 months. Patients under 65 years had higher Constant scores when treated with PHN and PKW than those treated conservatively (77.2 vs. 54.7, p = 0.01 and 74.0 vs. 54.7, p = 0.03, respectively). Patients above 65 years had higher Constant scores when treated with PKW compared to PHN and conservative treatment (68.7 vs. 51.9, p = 0.02 and 68.7 vs. 55.9, p = 0.029, respectively). In 2-fragment fractures, PKW resulted in higher Constant scores than conservative treatment (70.4 vs. 53.9, p = 0.048). No differences were found in the final outcome between patients treated with LP and those treated conservatively regardless of age, and fracture type. There were also no differences between any of the evaluated methods in the treatment of 3–4-fragment fractures. Conclusion The use of PKW was associated with better functional results than conservative treatment in individuals of all ages, especially in patients with 2-fragment fractures; PKW also achieved better functional results than PHN in elderly patients. PHN was superior to conservative treatment in young individuals. No significant differences were found between LP and conservative treatment in any of the analysed categories.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Bone Plates</subject><subject>Bone Wires</subject><subject>Conservative treatment</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods</subject><subject>Fracture Healing</subject><subject>Fracture type</subject><subject>Functional outcome</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immobilization - methods</subject><subject>Kirschner wires</subject><subject>Locking plate</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Proximal humeral nail</subject><subject>Proximal humerus fracture</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Shoulder Fractures - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Shoulder Fractures - physiopathology</subject><subject>Shoulder Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0020-1383</issn><issn>1879-0267</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EotvCP0AoRy5ZZuwktjnwoZYvqRIHQBwtx5lQh2yy9WwQ-fd4tYUDF6SRXo30ztczQjxB2CJg83zYxmlY0rqVgPUWclT2ntig0bYE2ej7YgMgoURl1Jk4Zx4AUINSD8WZbFDmzGzE66vI-9EH6op9mn_FnR-Lm2VHKWuffDgsifhF8e2GpiJywUv6TmktJgrE7NP66pF40PuR6fGdXoiv795-ufxQXn96__HyzXUZKqMPpVaWbDCkjW1QybrvOw2681RLCm3fdZ1EjwBgmsZQX4embdH21rRgvIJaXYhnp755zduF-OB2kQONo59oXtihRmOhqSqdrdXJGtLMnKh3-5QPS6tDcEd2bnAndu7IzkGOyuayp3cTlnZH3d-iP7Cy4eXJQPnOn5GS4xBpyuxionBw3Rz_N-HfBmGMUwx-_EEr8TAvacoMHTqWDtzn4_-O78MaQEkL6jdApZa5</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Tamimi, Iskandar</creator><creator>Montesa, Guillermo</creator><creator>Collado, Francisco</creator><creator>González, David</creator><creator>Carnero, Pablo</creator><creator>Rojas, Facundo</creator><creator>Nagib, Mohamed</creator><creator>Pérez, Verónica</creator><creator>Álvarez, Miguel</creator><creator>Tamimi, Faleh</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Displaced proximal humeral fractures: When is surgery necessary?</title><author>Tamimi, Iskandar ; Montesa, Guillermo ; Collado, Francisco ; González, David ; Carnero, Pablo ; Rojas, Facundo ; Nagib, Mohamed ; Pérez, Verónica ; Álvarez, Miguel ; Tamimi, Faleh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-739e9c8e78961325ffd707dae52ecbfddd21a10008668ef5c6bb19f98b08a3053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Bone Plates</topic><topic>Bone Wires</topic><topic>Conservative treatment</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods</topic><topic>Fracture Healing</topic><topic>Fracture type</topic><topic>Functional outcome</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immobilization - methods</topic><topic>Kirschner wires</topic><topic>Locking plate</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Proximal humeral nail</topic><topic>Proximal humerus fracture</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Shoulder Fractures - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Shoulder Fractures - physiopathology</topic><topic>Shoulder Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Iskandar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montesa, Guillermo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collado, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carnero, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rojas, Facundo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagib, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez, Verónica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Álvarez, Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamimi, Faleh</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Injury</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tamimi, Iskandar</au><au>Montesa, Guillermo</au><au>Collado, Francisco</au><au>González, David</au><au>Carnero, Pablo</au><au>Rojas, Facundo</au><au>Nagib, Mohamed</au><au>Pérez, Verónica</au><au>Álvarez, Miguel</au><au>Tamimi, Faleh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Displaced proximal humeral fractures: When is surgery necessary?</atitle><jtitle>Injury</jtitle><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1921</spage><epage>1929</epage><pages>1921-1929</pages><issn>0020-1383</issn><eissn>1879-0267</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Several therapeutic methods have been traditionally used in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures; however, the indication of these treatments is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the medium-term functional results of four methods commonly used in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures [conservative treatment, proximal humeral nails (PHN), percutaneous K-wiring (PKW), and locking-plates (LP)] taking into consideration the type of fracture and the age of the patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients with proximal humeral fractures treated with one of the following methods: conservative treatment, PHN, PKW, or LP. Functional results were assessed using the absolute Constant score and the disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand score (DASH). The functional outcome was analysed according to age (≥65 years and <65 years) and fracture type (displaced 2-fragment and 3–4-fragment fractures). Results A total of 113 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 65.3 SD 15.2 years and average follow-up time of 26.2 SD 12.6 months. Patients under 65 years had higher Constant scores when treated with PHN and PKW than those treated conservatively (77.2 vs. 54.7, p = 0.01 and 74.0 vs. 54.7, p = 0.03, respectively). Patients above 65 years had higher Constant scores when treated with PKW compared to PHN and conservative treatment (68.7 vs. 51.9, p = 0.02 and 68.7 vs. 55.9, p = 0.029, respectively). In 2-fragment fractures, PKW resulted in higher Constant scores than conservative treatment (70.4 vs. 53.9, p = 0.048). No differences were found in the final outcome between patients treated with LP and those treated conservatively regardless of age, and fracture type. There were also no differences between any of the evaluated methods in the treatment of 3–4-fragment fractures. Conclusion The use of PKW was associated with better functional results than conservative treatment in individuals of all ages, especially in patients with 2-fragment fractures; PKW also achieved better functional results than PHN in elderly patients. PHN was superior to conservative treatment in young individuals. No significant differences were found between LP and conservative treatment in any of the analysed categories.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26120018</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.049</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0020-1383 |
| ispartof | Injury, 2015-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1921-1929 |
| issn | 0020-1383 1879-0267 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1718906447 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Age Age Factors Bone Plates Bone Wires Conservative treatment Female Follow-Up Studies Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods Fracture Healing Fracture type Functional outcome Humans Immobilization - methods Kirschner wires Locking plate Male Middle Aged Orthopedics Practice Guidelines as Topic Proximal humeral nail Proximal humerus fracture Range of Motion, Articular Recovery of Function Retrospective Studies Shoulder Fractures - diagnostic imaging Shoulder Fractures - physiopathology Shoulder Fractures - surgery Treatment Outcome |
| title | Displaced proximal humeral fractures: When is surgery necessary? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T02%3A02%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Displaced%20proximal%20humeral%20fractures:%20When%20is%20surgery%20necessary?&rft.jtitle=Injury&rft.au=Tamimi,%20Iskandar&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1921&rft.epage=1929&rft.pages=1921-1929&rft.issn=0020-1383&rft.eissn=1879-0267&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.049&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1718906447%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1718906447&rft_id=info:pmid/26120018&rft_els_id=S0020138315003290&rfr_iscdi=true |