Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-12-2011 | Symposium: Fractures of the Shoulder Girdle

Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fracture: Does a Fracture-specific Stem Make a Difference?

Authors: Sumant G. Krishnan, MD, John R. Reineck, MD, Philip D. Bennion, MD, Leanne Feher, BS, Wayne Z. Burkhead Jr, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 12/2011

Abstract

Background

Arthroplasty for shoulder fractures is a technically challenging and unpredictable procedure and its use is controversial.

Questions/purposes

We therefore asked (1) to what degree function would be restored, (2) whether tuberosity healing would reliably occur, and (3) whether stem design would influence function in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with a hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture between September 2001 and May 2006. The first 58 patients (September 2001 to March 2004) were treated with a conventional humeral prosthesis. The next 112 patients (April 2004 to May 2006) were treated with a fracture-specific humeral prosthesis. Clinical measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, visual analog pain scores, and goniometric measurements of glenohumeral motion) and radiographic evaluation of tuberosity healing were performed at minimum 24-month followup (mean, 32 months; range, 24–96 months).

Results

Mean active anterior elevation was 118°, mean active external rotation 37.6°, and mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score 66. Overall, 127 of 170 (75%) greater tuberosities healed. With respect to stem design, active anterior elevation, active external rotation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were better with fracture-specific stems (129.8°, 39°, and 72, respectively) than with conventional stems (95.4°, 33.0°, and 55, respectively). Fewer tuberosities healed with conventional stems (38 of 58, 66%) than with fracture-specific stems (89 of 112, 79%).

Conclusions

The use of fracture-specific stems during proximal humeral hemiarthroplasty for fracture appears to improve functional use of the injured shoulder and tuberosity healing compared to conventional stems.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus: a minimum five-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:202–209.PubMedCrossRef

Bastian JD, Hertel R. Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:216–219.PubMedCrossRef

Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Molé D. Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:401–412.PubMedCrossRef

Boileau P, Pennington SD, Alami G. Proximal humeral fractures in younger patients: fixation techniques and arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2 Suppl):S47–S60.PubMedCrossRef

Compito CA, Self EB, Bigliani LU. Arthroplasty and acute shoulder trauma: reasons for success and failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;307:27–36.PubMed

Dines DM, Warren RF, Craig EV, Lee D, Dines JS. Intramedullary fracture positioning sleeve for proper placement of hemiarthroplasty in fractures of the proximal humerus. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;8:69–74.CrossRef

Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T, Giannoudis P. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1407–1413.PubMedCrossRef

Krishnan SG, Bennion PW, Reineck JR, Burkhead WZ. Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture: restoration of the Gothic arch. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008;39:441–450.PubMedCrossRef

Mighell MA, Kolm GP, Collinge CA, Frankle MA. Outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:569–577.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Moeckel BH, Dines DM, Warren RF, Altchek DW. Modular hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:884–889.PubMed

11.

Neer CS 2nd. Articular replacement of the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37:215–228.PubMed

12.

Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1077–1089.PubMed

13.

Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three and four part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1090–1103.PubMed

14.

Nho SJ, Brophy RH, Barker JU, Cornell CN, MacGillivray JD. Innovations in the management of displaced proximal humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:12–26.PubMed

15.

Nobuhara K. The Shoulder: Its Function and Clinical Aspects. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific; 2003.CrossRef

16.

Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, Iannotti JP, Mow VC, Sidles JA, Zuckerman JD. A standardized method for assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–352.CrossRef

17.

Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE. Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1215–1223.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Sperling JW, Cuomo F, Hill JD, Hertel R, Chuinard C, Boileau P. The difficult proximal humerus fracture: tips and techniques to avoid complications and improve results. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:45–57.PubMed

19.

Voos JE, Dines JS, Dines DM. Arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1560–1567.PubMed

20.

Zyto K, Kronberg M, Brostrom LA. Shoulder function after displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4:331–336.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fracture: Does a Fracture-specific Stem Make a Difference?
Authors: Sumant G. Krishnan, MD
John R. Reineck, MD
Philip D. Bennion, MD
Leanne Feher, BS
Wayne Z. Burkhead Jr, MD
Publication date: 01-12-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 12/2011
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1919-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fracture: Does a Fracture-specific Stem Make a Difference?

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2011

Stiffness and Thickness of Fascia Do Not Explain Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome

Precontoured Plating of Clavicle Fractures: Decreased Hardware-related Complications?

Residual Varus Alignment does not Compromise Results of TKAs in Patients with Preoperative Varus

Reply to Letter to the Editor: The Effect of Long-term Alendronate Treatment on Cortical Thickness of the Proximal Femur

Cost Analysis of a Falls-prevention Program in an Orthopaedic Setting

50 Years Ago in CORR: Surgical Approaches to the Region of the Shoulder Joint Anthony F. DePalma MD CORR 1961;20:163–184