Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fracture: Does a Fracture-specific Stem Make a Difference?
Tóm tắt
Arthroplasty for shoulder fractures is a technically challenging and unpredictable procedure and its use is controversial. We therefore asked (1) to what degree function would be restored, (2) whether tuberosity healing would reliably occur, and (3) whether stem design would influence function in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture. We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with a hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture between September 2001 and May 2006. The first 58 patients (September 2001 to March 2004) were treated with a conventional humeral prosthesis. The next 112 patients (April 2004 to May 2006) were treated with a fracture-specific humeral prosthesis. Clinical measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, visual analog pain scores, and goniometric measurements of glenohumeral motion) and radiographic evaluation of tuberosity healing were performed at minimum 24-month followup (mean, 32 months; range, 24–96 months). Mean active anterior elevation was 118°, mean active external rotation 37.6°, and mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score 66. Overall, 127 of 170 (75%) greater tuberosities healed. With respect to stem design, active anterior elevation, active external rotation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were better with fracture-specific stems (129.8°, 39°, and 72, respectively) than with conventional stems (95.4°, 33.0°, and 55, respectively). Fewer tuberosities healed with conventional stems (38 of 58, 66%) than with fracture-specific stems (89 of 112, 79%). The use of fracture-specific stems during proximal humeral hemiarthroplasty for fracture appears to improve functional use of the injured shoulder and tuberosity healing compared to conventional stems. Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus: a minimum five-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:202–209.
Bastian JD, Hertel R. Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:216–219.
Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Molé D. Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:401–412.
Boileau P, Pennington SD, Alami G. Proximal humeral fractures in younger patients: fixation techniques and arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2 Suppl):S47–S60.
Compito CA, Self EB, Bigliani LU. Arthroplasty and acute shoulder trauma: reasons for success and failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;307:27–36.
Dines DM, Warren RF, Craig EV, Lee D, Dines JS. Intramedullary fracture positioning sleeve for proper placement of hemiarthroplasty in fractures of the proximal humerus. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;8:69–74.
Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T, Giannoudis P. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1407–1413.
Krishnan SG, Bennion PW, Reineck JR, Burkhead WZ. Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture: restoration of the Gothic arch. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008;39:441–450.
Mighell MA, Kolm GP, Collinge CA, Frankle MA. Outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:569–577.
Moeckel BH, Dines DM, Warren RF, Altchek DW. Modular hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:884–889.
Neer CS 2nd. Articular replacement of the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37:215–228.
Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1077–1089.
Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three and four part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1090–1103.
Nho SJ, Brophy RH, Barker JU, Cornell CN, MacGillivray JD. Innovations in the management of displaced proximal humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:12–26.
Nobuhara K. The Shoulder: Its Function and Clinical Aspects. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific; 2003.
Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, Iannotti JP, Mow VC, Sidles JA, Zuckerman JD. A standardized method for assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–352.
Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE. Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1215–1223.
Sperling JW, Cuomo F, Hill JD, Hertel R, Chuinard C, Boileau P. The difficult proximal humerus fracture: tips and techniques to avoid complications and improve results. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:45–57.
Voos JE, Dines JS, Dines DM. Arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1560–1567.
Zyto K, Kronberg M, Brostrom LA. Shoulder function after displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4:331–336.