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
  • [31] Quality of Life and Pain after Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review
    Iking, Janette
    Fischhuber, Karen
    Stolberg-Stolberg, Josef
    Raschke, Michael J.
    Katthagen, Jan Christoph
    Koeppe, Jeanette
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2023, 59 (10):
  • [32] Operative versus non-operative treatment in complex proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Xie, Lin
    Ding, Fan
    Zhao, Zhigang
    Chen, Yan
    Xing, Danmou
    SPRINGERPLUS, 2015, 4 : 1 - 9
  • [33] Return to work after proximal humeral fractures: a single center study comparing conservative versus operative treatment
    Hameleers, Amber
    Most, Jasper
    Schotanus, Martijn
    Wijnands, Nina
    Dremmen, Martijn
    van Vugt, Raoul
    Boonen, Bert
    ORTHOPEDIC REVIEWS, 2025, 17
  • [34] Stable osteosynthesis of cage in cage technique for surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures
    Li, Jiantao
    Gao, Yuan
    Yin, Caixia
    Zhang, Hao
    Nie, Shaobo
    Guo, Hui
    Quan, Chenliang
    Chen, Hua
    Zhang, Wei
    BMC SURGERY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [35] Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures - a Review of Current Concepts Enlightened by Basic Principles
    Maier, D.
    Jaeger, M.
    Strohm, P. C.
    Suedkamp, N. P.
    ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE CECHOSLOVACA, 2012, 79 (04) : 307 - 316
  • [36] Management of proximal humeral fractures: a review of current treatment options
    Kadavkolan, Aditya Sai
    Wasnik, Sandeep S.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDIC PRACTICE, 2015, 26 (02): : 169 - 180
  • [37] Surgical versus conservative treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis
    Fu, Tao
    Xia, Chengyan
    Li, Zonghuan
    Wu, Hua
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2014, 7 (12): : 4607 - 4615
  • [38] A network meta-analysis of multiple modalities for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in older adults
    Huang, Zuqi
    Dong, Huazhang
    Ye, Changping
    Zou, Zhuan
    Wan, Weiliang
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2023, 54 (10):
  • [39] The Outcome of Proximal Humeral Locking Plates in the Management of Three and Four Part Proximal Humeral Fractures in Special Cohort of Young Patients in High Velocity Trauma
    Mariadoss, Alphonse
    Thacker, Jignesh
    Gopikrishnan, Krishnanunni
    Ashraf, Munis
    Annamalai, Sakthivel
    Sambandam, Senthil
    ARCHIVES OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-ABJS, 2019, 7 (01): : 38 - 45
  • [40] Proximal humeral fractures CURRENT CONCEPTS IN CLASSIFICATION, TREATMENT AND OUTCOMES
    Murray, I. R.
    Amin, A. K.
    White, T. O.
    Robinson, C. M.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2011, 93B (01): : 1 - 11