Ischaemia, healing and outcomes in proximal humeral fractures

EFORT Open Reviews - Tập 3 Số 5 - Trang 304-315 - 2018
Simon Lambert1
1University College London Hospital, UK

Tóm tắt

Interfragmental ischaemia is a prerequisite for the initiation of the inflammatory and immunological response to fracturing of bone. Intrafragmental ischaemia is inevitable: the extent of the initial ischaemic insult does not, however, directly relate to the outcome for healing of the fracture zones and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. The survival of distal regions of fragments with critical perfusion may be the result of a type of inosculation (blood vessel contact), which establishes reperfusion before either revascularization or neo-angiogenesis has occurred. Periosteum has a poorly defined role in fracture healing in the proximal humerus. The metaphyseal periosteal perfusion may have a profound effect, as yet undefined, on the healing of most metaphyseal fractures of the proximal humerus, and may be disturbed further by inadvertent surgical manipulation. The metaphysis can be considered as a ‘torus’ or ring of bone, its surface covered by periosteum antero- and posterolaterally, through which the tuberosity segments gain perfusion and capsular reflections antero- and posteromedially, through which the humeral head (articular) fragment gains perfusion. The torus is broken in relatively simple primary patterns: a fracture line at the upper surface of the torus is an anatomical ‘neck’ fracture; a fracture line at the lower surface of the torus is the surgical ‘neck’ fracture. Secondary fragmentation (through compression and/or distraction) of the torus itself creates complexity for analysis (classification), alters the capacity and outcome for healing (by variable interruption of the fragmental blood supply) and influences interfragmental stability.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180005

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1038/7434

10.1002/jor.20264

Carlevaro MF, 2000, J Cell Sci, 113, 59, 10.1242/jcs.113.1.59

10.1007/s11420-009-9129-4

10.1038/9467

10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0687

10.1016/j.bone.2017.04.002

10.1530/JOE-16-0666

10.1007/s00402-008-0777-5

10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.9.1584

10.1097/00003086-199810001-00006

10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00259-0

10.1007/s11914-008-0012-x

10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.07.001

Schmidt-Bleek K, 2015, Tissue Engineering: Part B. Volume, 21, 4

10.1007/s00256-009-0849-9

Chanavaz M, 1995, J Oral Implantol, 21, 214

Kitaoka K, 1999, 45th Annual Meeting, Orthopaedic Research Society Abstracts, 760

10.1016/j.injury.2007.05.017

10.1002/jor.22181

10.3389/fendo.2012.00098

10.1016/j.bone.2007.08.048

10.1007/s10735-010-9261-y

Al-Qtaitat A, 2010, J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 10, 112

10.1002/jcp.25641

10.1016/j.bone.2008.06.007

10.1007/s007760050010

10.1002/jbmr.1777

10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0216

10.1038/icb.2016.74

10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.030

10.1002/jor.20586

Whiteside LA, 1978, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 131, 266

10.1016/0007-1226(87)90185-8

10.1111/ans.13756

Valencia M, 2011, Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol, 55, 405

Brooks CH, 1993, J Bone Joint Surg [Br], 75, l32

10.1302/0301-620X.86B3.14428

10.2106/JBJS.H.01144

10.2106/00004623-199608000-00018

10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0252

10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.034

10.2106/00004623-197052060-00001

10.1007/s12306-015-0358-z

10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.026

10.1001/jama.2015.1629

10.1302/0301-620X.83B6.0830799

10.1080/000164701753542023

10.1302/0301-620X.84B4.0840504

10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.004

10.1080/00016470410004111

10.1302/2046-3758.510.2000638

10.1016/S0020-1383(15)30019-X

10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.005

10.1097/TA.0b013e3181469840

10.1097/00005373-198109000-00006

10.1016/j.injury.2015.06.026

10.1097/00003086-199810001-00004

Cruess RL, 1986, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 208, 30, 10.1097/00003086-198607000-00007

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

EFORT Open Reviews

Tập 3 Số 5

304-315

Thông tin tác giả