Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 2/2015

01-02-2015 | Original Paper

Decision making in displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: fracture or surgeon based?

Authors: Gertraud Gradl, Matthias Knobe, Hans-Christoph Pape, Paul Valentin Neuhaus, David Ring, Thierry Guitton

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to analyse the factors that influence surgeon decision-making in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures that might be considered for arthroplasty or open reduction and internal fixation.

Methods

A total of 217 surgeons evaluated radiographs and clinical vignettes of ten patients with fractures of the proximal humerus. In addition to radiographs, we provided patient age, sex, trauma mechanism, activity level (sedentary-vigorously active), and physical status (normal healthy-moribund). Observers were asked to: (1) choose open reduction and internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty (closed question, one option) and (2) to briefly describe the factors that led to their decision (open-ended question). We assessed interobserver reliability using the Fleiss generalized kappa and analysed factors that influenced decision-making according to treatment choice.

Results

Internal fixation was the preferred treatment for the majority of fractures. The overall multirater agreement was fair (κ = 0.30), with a 75 % proportion of agreement. When asked to describe the factors that influenced decision-making, surgeons favouring internal fixation described patient-based factors in 52 %, fracture morphology in 51 %, surgeon factors in 42 %, and bone quality in 11 %. In contrast, fracture morphology was the most common factor (67 %) described by surgeons recommending replacement. Patient age, sex, activity level, physical status and the presence of angular displacement were associated with a recommendation for internal fixation.

Conclusion

There is substantial variation in recommendations for internal fixation vs. arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus that arises in large part from patient and surgeon factors.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52(6):1077–1089PubMed Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52(6):1077–1089PubMed
2.
go back to reference Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE (2003) Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(7):1215–1223PubMed Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE (2003) Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(7):1215–1223PubMed
5.
go back to reference Sporer SM, Weinstein JN, Koval KJ (2006) The geographic incidence and treatment variation of common fractures of elderly patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(4):246–255PubMed Sporer SM, Weinstein JN, Koval KJ (2006) The geographic incidence and treatment variation of common fractures of elderly patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(4):246–255PubMed
6.
go back to reference Weinstein JN (2000) The missing piece: embracing shared decision making to reform health care. Spine 25(1):1–4PubMedCrossRef Weinstein JN (2000) The missing piece: embracing shared decision making to reform health care. Spine 25(1):1–4PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus. Epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg Brit 83(6):799–804PubMedCrossRef Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus. Epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg Brit 83(6):799–804PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California
14.
18.
go back to reference Ortmaier R, Mattiassich G, Pumberger M, Hitzl W, Moroder P, Auffarth A, Resch H (2014) Comparison between reverse shoulder arthroplasty and humerusblock in three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2433-8 Ortmaier R, Mattiassich G, Pumberger M, Hitzl W, Moroder P, Auffarth A, Resch H (2014) Comparison between reverse shoulder arthroplasty and humerusblock in three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Int Orthop. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-014-2433-8
19.
go back to reference Demirhan M, Kilicoglu O, Altinel L, Eralp L, Akalin Y (2003) Prognostic factors in prosthetic replacement for acute proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 17(3):181–188, discussion 188–189 Demirhan M, Kilicoglu O, Altinel L, Eralp L, Akalin Y (2003) Prognostic factors in prosthetic replacement for acute proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 17(3):181–188, discussion 188–189
24.
go back to reference Carbone S, Tangari M, Gumina S, Postacchini R, Campi A, Postacchini F (2012) Percutaneous pinning of three- or four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients in poor general condition: MIROS(R) versus traditional pinning. Int Orthop 36(6):1267–1273. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1474-5 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Carbone S, Tangari M, Gumina S, Postacchini R, Campi A, Postacchini F (2012) Percutaneous pinning of three- or four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients in poor general condition: MIROS(R) versus traditional pinning. Int Orthop 36(6):1267–1273. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-011-1474-5 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Decision making in displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: fracture or surgeon based?
Authors
Gertraud Gradl
Matthias Knobe
Hans-Christoph Pape
Paul Valentin Neuhaus
David Ring
Thierry Guitton
Publication date
01-02-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2630-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

International Orthopaedics 2/2015 Go to the issue