medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2015, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2015; 29 (4)

Treatment protocol in elderly patients with three- or four-fragment proximal humerus facture at a referral center located in an emerging economy

Núñez-Gómez DA, Hernández-Álvarez B, Pérez-Atanasio JM, Torres-González R, Águila-Ledesma IR

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 207-211
PDF size: 141.00 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Proximal humerus fractures account for 4-5% of the fractures that occur among elderly people; they represent 45% of humerus fractures, and 13-16% of them are three- or four-fragment fractures. Methods: Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of secondary data sources. The records of patients over 60 years of age with a diagnosis of three- or four-fragment proximal humerus fractures were analyzed. A non-probabilistic sampling technique of consecutive cases was used. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, fragment number, limb involved and dominant limb, and treatment protocol. Results: 118 patients were included, most of them females (83.9%), age range was 60-93 years, with a mean age of 73 years. Three-fragment fractures represented 63%, and four-fragment fractures 36%. The left limb was more frequently affected, accounting for 57%; 43% of cases were treated conservatively. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was performed in 39 cases with a tension band, in 22 patients with hemiarthroplasty, ORIF with a 4.5 T-plate in 5 patients, and ORIF with a LCP LISS plate in one patient. Conclusions: Female patients over 72 years of age underwent this kind of treatment more frequently. Surgical treatment accounted for 57%, unlike what the literature reports (20%).


REFERENCES

  1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006; 37(8): 691-697.

  2. INEGI. CENSO DE POBLACION Y VIVIENDA. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADISTICA Y GEOGRAFIA. 2013.

  3. Social IM del S. Estadisticas de atención de población. 2013.

  4. Edelson G, Safuri H, Salami J, Vigder F, Militianu D. Natural history of complex fractures of the proximal humerus using a three-dimensional classification system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(3): 399-409.

  5. Nanidis TG, Majed A, Liddle AD, Constantinides VA, Sivagnanam P, Tekkis PP, Reilly P, Emery RJ. Conservative versus operative management of complex proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis. Shoulder & Elbow. 2010; 2: 166-174

  6. Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970; 52(6):1077-1089.

  7. Fjalestad T, Strømsøe K, Blücher J, Tennøe B. Fractures in the proximal humerus: functional outcome and evaluation of 70 patients treated in hospital. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005; 125(5): 310-316.

  8. Fjalestad T, Hole MØ, Jørgensen JJ, Strømsøe K, Kristiansen IS. Health and cost consequences of surgical versus conservative treatment for a comminuted proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients. Injury. 2010; 41(6): 599-605.

  9. Rees J, Hicks J, Ribbans W. Assessment and management of three-and four-part proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; (353): 18-29.

  10. Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, Stengel D. Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(4): 612-621.

  11. Sporer SM, Weinstein JN, Koval KJ. The geographic incidence and treatment variation of common fractures of elderly patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006; 14(4): 246-255.

  12. 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(11): 1407-1413.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com