Cement augmentation of humeral head screws reduces early implant-related complications after locked plating of proximal humeral fractures; [Zementaugmentation der Humeruskopfschrauben reduziert frühe, implantatassoziierte Komplikationen nach winkelstabiler Plattenosteosynthese dislozierter proximaler Humerusfrakturen]

被引：0
作者：
Katthagen J.C. [1 ,2 ]
Lutz O. [1 ]
Voigt C. [1 ]
Lill H. [1 ]
Ellwein A. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, DIAKOVERE Friederikenstift, Hannover
[2] Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Str. 1, Münster
来源：
Obere Extremität | 2018年 / 13卷 / 2期
关键词：
Bone plates; Cementation; Humeral fractures; proximal; Postoperative complications; Shoulder;
D O I：
10.1007/s11678-018-0440-x
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: Cement augmentation (CA) of humeral head screws in locked plating of proximal humeral fractures (PHF) was found to be biomechanically beneficial. However, clinical outcomes of this treatment have not been well evaluated to date. Objectives: To assess outcomes of locked plating of PHF with additional CA and to compare them with outcomes of conventional locked plating without CA. Methods: 24 patients (mean age, 74.2 ± 10.1 years; 22 female) with displaced PHF were prospectively enrolled and treated with locked plating and additional CA. The Constant score (CS), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and the Simple Shoulder Value (SSV) were assessed 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Fracture healing and potential complications were evaluated on postoperative radiographs. The CS and complications were compared with the outcomes of a matched group of 24 patients (mean age, 73.9 ± 9.4 years; 22 female) with locked plating of displaced PHF without CA. Results: At the 3‑month follow-up, the mean CS was 59.9 ± 15.6 points, the mean SST was 7.5 ± 2.7 points, and the mean SSV was 63.9 ± 21.7%. All scores significantly improved by the 12-month follow-up (p < 0.05; CS, 72.9 ± 17.7; SST, 9.2 ± 3.2; SSV, 77.2 ± 17.3%). There were two cases (8%) of biological complications (n = 1 varus malunion and n = 1 humeral head necrosis). Compared with locked plating without CA, no significant differences were observed between the CS at the 3‑ (57.8 ± 13.4 points; p = 0.62) and 12-month (73.0 ± 12.8 points; p = 0.99) follow-up. However, patients without CA had a significantly increased risk of early loss of reduction and articular screw perforation (p = 0.037). Conclusion: Locked plating of proximal humeral fractures with trauma cement augmentation of humeral head screws could be translated from the ex-vivo lab setting into the clinical situation without additional complications. Locked plating of displaced PHF with additional cement augmentation showed similar clinical outcomes but reduced the rate of early implant-related complications compared to locked plating without additional CA. © 2018, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码：123 / 129
页数：6
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
Singh A., Adams A.L., Burchette R., Dell R.M., Funahashi T.T., Navarro R.A., The effect of osteoporosis management on proximal humeral fracture, J. Shoulder Elbow Surg., 24, 2, pp. 191-198, (2015)
[2]  
Hardeman F., Bollars P., Donnelly M., Bellemans J., Nijs S., Predictive factors for functional outcome and failure in angular stable osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus, Injury, 43, 2, pp. 153-158, (2012)
[3]  
Katthagen J.C., Grabowski S., Huber M., Jensen G., Voigt C., Lill H., Epidemiology and treatment reality of proximal humeral fractures at a level-1 trauma center, Obere Extremität, 11, 2, pp. 112-118, (2016)
[4]  
Feerick E.M., Kennedy J., Mullett H., FitzPatrick D., McGarry P., Investigation of metallic and carbon fiber PEEK fracture fixation devices for three-part proximal humeral fractures, Med Eng Phys, 35, 6, pp. 712-722, (2013)
[5]  
Voigt C., Hurschler C., Rechi L., Vosshenrich R., Lill H., Additive fiber-cerclages in proximal humeral fractures stabilized by locking plates: no effect on fracture stabilization and rotator cuff function in human shoulder specimens, Acta Orthop, 80, 4, pp. 465-471, (2009)
[6]  
Lill H., Hepp P., Korner J., Kassi J.P., Verheyden A.P., Josten C., Duda G.N., Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens, Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 123, 2-3, pp. 74-81, (2003)
[7]  
Sproul R.C., Iyengar J.J., Devcic Z., Feeley B.T., A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures, Injury, 42, 4, pp. 408-413, (2011)
[8]  
Schnetzke M., Bockmeyer J., Porschke F., Studier-Fischer S., Grutzner P.A., Guehring T., Quality of reduction influences outcome after locked-plate fixation of proximal humeral type-C fractures, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 98, 21, pp. 1777-1785, (2016)
[9]  
Beeres F.J.P., Hellensleben N.D.L., Rhemrev S.J., Goslings J.C., Oehme F., Meylaerts S.A.G., Babst R., Schep N.W.L., Plate fixation of the proximal humerus: an international multicenter comparative study of postoperative complications, Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, (2017)
[10]  
Katthagen J.C., Huber M., Grabowski S., Ellwein A., Jensen G., Lill H., Failure and revision rates of proximal humeral fracture treatment with the use of a standardized treatment algorithm at a level-1 trauma center, J Orthop Traumatol, (2017)
123