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
  • [21] Humeral torsional side differences after nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures and humeral shaft fractures: clinical and ultrasonographic assessment
    Razaeian, Sam
    Menzel, Jan-Niklas
    Zhang, Dafang
    Krettek, Christian
    Hawi, Nael
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2023, 18 (01)
  • [22] Humeral torsional side differences after nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures and humeral shaft fractures: clinical and ultrasonographic assessment
    Sam Razaeian
    Jan-Niklas Menzel
    Dafang Zhang
    Christian Krettek
    Nael Hawi
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 18
  • [23] Comparison between the spatial subchondral support plate and the proximal humeral locking plate in the treatment of unstable proximal humeral fractures
    Fan Zhang
    Lei Zhu
    Di Yang
    Peng Yang
    Jun Ma
    Qiang Fu
    Aimin Chen
    International Orthopaedics, 2015, 39 : 1167 - 1173
  • [24] Virtual morphological comparison of three intramedullary nailing systems for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures
    Harnoss, Tobias
    Felkel, Bernd
    Doebele, Stefan
    Schreiber, Ulrich
    Lenich, Andreas
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2014, 45 : S24 - S28
  • [25] Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures
    Yang Shu-hua
    Wang Jing
    Xu Wei-hua
    Li Jin
    Liu Guo-hui
    Yang Cao
    Ye Shu-nan
    Ye Zhe-wei
    Liu Yong
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF TRAUMATOLOGY, 2009, 12 (01) : 14 - 17
  • [26] Excellent functional outcomes after operative treatment of multifragmentary, dislocated proximal humeral fractures in patients over 65 years of age
    Mate, Burkus
    Andreas, Bruch
    Eva-Maria, Bergmann
    Kristof, Jozsef
    Munira, Karahodzic-Franjic
    Marty, Zdichavsky
    ORVOSI HETILAP, 2024, 165 (20) : 775 - 784
  • [27] Modern Minimally Invasive Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures
    Moroder, Philipp
    Tauber, Mark
    Carbone, Stefano
    Auffarth, Alexander
    Resch, Herbert
    TECHNIQUES IN ORTHOPAEDICS, 2013, 28 (04) : 281 - 286
  • [28] Treatment of proximal humeral fractures by intramedullary Kirschner wires
    Qidwai, SA
    JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 2001, 50 (06): : 1090 - 1095
  • [29] β-Tricalcium Phosphate in the Surgical Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures
    Sarmento, Marco
    Martins, Samuel
    Monteiro, Jacinto
    ACTA MEDICA PORTUGUESA, 2016, 29 (01): : 41 - 45
  • [30] Trends in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures - a nationwide 23-year study in Finland
    Huttunen, Tuomas T.
    Launonen, Antti P.
    Pihlajamaki, Harri
    Kannus, Pekka
    Mattila, Ville M.
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2012, 13