Understanding postoperative rehabilitation preferences in operatively managed proximal humerus fractures: do trauma and shoulder surgeons differ?

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common, and their incidence is increasing as the population ages. Despite this, postoperative rehabilitation remains unstandardized and little is known about surgeon preferences. The aim of this study was to assess differences in postoperative rehabilitation preferences and patient education between orthopedic trauma and shoulder surgeons. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to assess differences in postoperative rehabilitation preferences and patient counseling. Descriptive statistics were reported for all respondents, trauma surgeons, and shoulder surgeons. Chi-square and unpaired 2-sample t tests were used to compare responses. Multinomial regression was used to further elucidate the influence of fellowship training independent of confounding characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 293 surgeons completed the survey, including 172 shoulder and 78 trauma surgeons. A greater proportion of trauma surgeons preferred an immediate weightbearing status after arthroplasty compared to shoulder surgeons (45% vs. 19%, P = .003), but not after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (62% vs. 75%, P = .412). A greater proportion of shoulder surgeons preferred home exercise therapy taught by the physician or using a handout following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) (21% vs. 2%, P = .009). A greater proportion of trauma surgeons began passive range of motion (ROM) <2 weeks after 2-part fractures (70% vs. 41%, P < .001). Conversely, a greater proportion of shoulder surgeons began passive ROM between 2 and 6 weeks for 2-part (57% vs. 24%, P < .001) and 4-part fractures (65% vs. 43%, P = .020). On multinomial regression analysis, fellowship training in shoulder surgery was associated with preference for a nonweightbearing duration of >12 weeks vs. 6-12 weeks after ORIF. Similarly, fellowship training in shoulder surgery was associated with increased odds of preferring a nonweightbearing duration of <6 weeks vs. no restrictions and >12 weeks vs. 6-12 weeks after arthroplasty. Training in shoulder surgery was associated with greater odds of preferring a nonweightbearing duration prior to beginning passive ROM of 2-6 weeks vs. <2 weeks or >6 weeks for 2-part fractures, but not 4-part fractures. CONCLUSION: Trauma surgeons have a more aggressive approach to rehabilitation following operative PHF repair compared to shoulder surgeons regarding time to weightbearing status and passive ROM. Given the increasing incidence of PHFs and substantial variations in reported treatment outcomes, differences in rehabilitation after PHF treatment should be further evaluated to determine the role it may play in the outcomes of treatment studies.