Readmissions, revisions, and mortality after treatment for proximal humeral fractures in three large states

被引:3
|
作者
Dabija, Dominique, I [1 ]
Guan, Hongshu [2 ]
Neviaser, Andrew [3 ]
Jain, Nitin B. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Med, Nashville, TN 37212 USA
[2] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Med, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Ohio State Univ, Dept Orthopaed, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[4] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, 2201 Childrens Way,Suite 1318, Nashville, TN 37212 USA
[5] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed & Rehabil, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
关键词
Proximal humeral fractures; Open reduction and internal fixation; Arthroplasty; NONOPERATIVE TREATMENT; ELDERLY-PATIENTS; UNITED-STATES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1186/s12891-019-2812-9
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Proximal humeral fractures can be treated non-operatively or operatively with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and arthroplasty. Our objective was to assess practice patterns for operative and non-operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures. We also report on complications, readmissions, in-hospital mortality, and need for surgery after initial treatment of proximal humeral fractures in California, Florida, and New York. Methods The State Inpatient Databases and State Emergency Department Databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, were used for the states of California (2005-2011), Florida (2005-2014), and New York (2008-2014). Data on patients with proximal humeral fractures was extracted. Patients underwent non-operative or operative (ORIF or arthroplasty) treatment at baseline and were followed for at least 4 years from the index presentation. If the patient needed subsequent surgery, time to event was calculated in days, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted. Results At the index visit, 90.3% of patients with proximal humeral fractures had non-operative treatment, 6.7% had ORIF, and 3.0% had arthroplasty. 7.6% of patients initially treated non-operatively, 6.6% initially treated with ORIF, and 7.2% initially treated with arthroplasty needed surgery during follow-up. Device complications were the primary reason for readmission in 5.3% of ORIF patients and 6.7% of arthroplasty patients (p < 0.0001). All-cause in-hospital mortality was 9.8% for patients managed non-operatively, 8.8% for ORIF, and 10.0% for arthroplasty (p = 0.003). Conclusions A majority of patients with proximal humeral fractures underwent non-operative treatment. There was a relatively high all-cause in-hospital mortality irrespective of treatment. Given the recent debate on operative versus non-operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures, our study provides valuable information on the need for revision surgery after initial treatment. The differences in rates of revision surgery between patients treated non-operatively, with ORIF, and with arthroplasty were small in magnitude. At nine years of follow-up, ORIF had the lowest probability of needing follow-up surgery, and arthroplasty had the highest.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Readmissions, revisions, and mortality after treatment for proximal humeral fractures in three large states
    Dominique I. Dabija
    Hongshu Guan
    Andrew Neviaser
    Nitin B. Jain
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20
  • [2] Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment in Complex Proximal Humeral Fractures
    Mao, Zhi
    Zhang, Lihai
    Zhang, Licheng
    Zeng, Xiantao
    Chen, Shuo
    Liu, Daohong
    Zhou, Zhirui
    Tang, Peifu
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2014, 37 (05) : E410 - E419
  • [3] The outcome of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly PREDICTORS OF MORTALITY AND FUNCTION
    Clement, N. D.
    Duckworth, A. D.
    McQueen, M. M.
    Court-Brown, C. M.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2014, 96B (07) : 970 - 977
  • [4] Comparison between the spatial subchondral support plate and the proximal humeral locking plate in the treatment of unstable proximal humeral fractures
    Zhang, Fan
    Zhu, Lei
    Yang, Di
    Yang, Peng
    Ma, Jun
    Fu, Qiang
    Chen, Aimin
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2015, 39 (06) : 1167 - 1173
  • [5] Conservative treatment of proximal humeral fractures
    Holschen, Malte
    Clasing, Jens
    Bartscht, Tobias
    Ameziane, Yacine
    Moellenhoff, Gunnar
    Steinbeck, Joern
    OBERE EXTREMITAET-SCHULTER-ELLENBOGEN-HAND-UPPER EXTREMITY-SHOULDER ELBOW HAND, 2022, 17 (03): : 172 - 179
  • [6] Proximal humeral fractures in Finland: regional differences in incidence and methods of treatment
    Roivas, Ida A.
    Leino, Oskari K.
    Lehtima, Kaisa K.
    Matilainen, Markus
    Ekman, Elina
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2025, 34 (04) : 1081 - 1087
  • [7] Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures
    Wall, Bryan
    Walch, Gilles
    HAND CLINICS, 2007, 23 (04) : 425 - +
  • [8] Current Controversies in the Treatment of Geriatric Proximal Humeral Fractures
    Mease, Samuel J.
    Kraeutler, Matthew J.
    Gonzales-Luna, Daniel C.
    Gregory, James M.
    Gardner, Michael J.
    Choo, Andrew M.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2021, 103 (09) : 829 - 836
  • [9] Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of proximal humeral fractures
    Wang, Guoqi
    Mao, Zhi
    Zhang, Lihai
    Zhang, Licheng
    Zhao, Yanpeng
    Yin, Peng
    Gao, Ling
    Tang, Peifu
    Kang, Hongjun
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2015, 10
  • [10] Outcome after operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients
    Muhm, Markus
    Bott, Julia
    Lahr, Christoph
    Winkler, Hartmut
    Ruffing, Thomas
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GERONTOLOGIE UND GERIATRIE, 2016, 49 (06): : 505 - 511