Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 10/2011

01-10-2011 | Original Paper

Physeal injuries of the proximal humerus: long-term results in seventy two patients

Authors: Harald Binder, Mark Schurz, Silke Aldrian, Christian Fialka, Vilmos Vécsei

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 10/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate our treatment methods of proximal humeral physeal injuries retrospectively and elucidate the relationship between the trauma mechanism, the radiographic injury pattern, the consequent therapy and the functional outcome, and to further deduct and verify prognostic criteria.

Methods

At our Department of Trauma Surgery, 303 children and adolescent patients with fractures of the proximal humeral epiphysis were treated from 1992 to 2009. 72 cases were diagnosed as physeal fractures according to the Salter–Harris classification and were included in our study.

Results

15 physeal fractures of the proximal humerus were reconstructed anatomically by open or closed reduction and produced 93.3% excellent results. 57 physeal fractures were treated in a conservative way and produced 94.7% excellent results.

Conclusion

We state that epiphyseal injuries should to be treated depending on the age of the patient. This is the only way to decrease the rate of posttraumatic epiphysiodesis with consequent problems, including limb-length discrepancy and/or angular deformities.
Literature
1.
Rose SH, Melton LJ 3rd, Morrey BF et al (1982) Epidemiologic features of humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 168:24–30PubMed
2.
Neer CS 2nd, Horwitz BS (1965) Fractures of the epiphyseal plate. Clin Orthop 41:24–30PubMed
3.
Peterson CA, Peterson HA (1972) Analysis of the incidence of injuries to the epiphyseal growth plate. J Trauma 12:275–281PubMedCrossRef
4.
Baxter MP, Wiley JJ (1986) Fractures of the proximal humeral epiphysis. Their influence on humeral growth. J Bone Joint Surg Br 68:570–573PubMed
5.
Dobbs MB, Luhmann SL, Gordon JE (2003) Severely displaced proximal humeral epiphysial fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 23:208–215PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Ogden JA, Humerus (2000) Skeletal injury in the child. Springer, New York, pp 456–541
8.
Barnet LS (1985) Little league shoulder syndrome: proximal humeral epiphysiolysis in adolescent baseball pitchers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:495–496
9.
Chaill BR, Tullos HS, Fain RH (1974) Little league shoulder. J Sports Med 2:150–155CrossRef
10.
Strauss RH, Lanese RR (1982) Injuries among wrestlers in school and college tournaments. JAMA 248:2016–2018PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dameron TB Jr, Reibel DB (1969) Fractures involving the proximal humeral epiphyseal plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:289–297PubMed
12.
Salter RB, Harris R (1963) Injuries involving the epiphyseal plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45:587–622
13.
Von Laer L (2007) Verletzungen des Schultergürtels und des Humerusschaftes, Thieme, Frakturen und Luxationen im Wachstumsalter. Stuttgart, Germany, pp 105–110
14.
Blount WP (1957) Knochenbrüche bei Kindern. Stuttgart, Thieme, Germany, pp 226–228
15.
Judet J (1964) Fractures du col chirurgical de l´humerus. Acta Orthop Belg 243–248
16.
Aitken AP (1963) The end results of the fractured distal tibial epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg 18:685–691
17.
Carothers CO, Crenshaw AH (1963) Clinical significance of a classification of epiphyseal injuries of the ankle. Am J Surg 89:879–889CrossRef
18.
19.
Rockwood CA, Wilkins KE, Beaty JH (1996) Proximal humerus fractures. Fractures in children, vol 3, 5th edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 929–952
20.
De Sanctis N, Della Corte S, Pempinello C (2000) Distal tibial and fibular epiphyseal fractures in children: prognostic criteria and long term results in 158 patients. J Pedeatr Orthop B 9:40–44
Metadata
Title
Physeal injuries of the proximal humerus: long-term results in seventy two patients
Authors
Harald Binder
Mark Schurz
Silke Aldrian
Christian Fialka
Vilmos Vécsei
Publication date
01-10-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 10/2011
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1277-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2011

International Orthopaedics 10/2011 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Reply to comment on Cheng et al.: Comparison study of two surgical options for distal tibia fracture—minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis vs. open reduction and internal fixation

Original Paper

Socio-economic impact of Birmingham hip resurfacing on patient employment after ten years

Original Paper

A retrospective analysis of bilateral fractures over sixteen years: localisation and variation in treatment of second hip fractures

Original Paper

New “L value” parameter simplifies and enhances hip ultrasound interpretation in the detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Original Paper

A cementless elastic monoblock socket in young patients: a ten to 18-year clinical and radiological follow-up

Original Paper

Is ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament an enthesopathy?