Radiographic parameter(s) influencing functional outcomes following angular stable plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures.

PURPOSE: Radiographic parameters which correlate with poor clinical outcome after proximal humeral fractures could be helpful indicators to answer the question which patients should be followed up closer. Moreover, during surgery, radiographic parameters correlating with unfavourable outcome should be avoided. The primary aim of the study was to compare radiographic measurements between the injured and the contralateral, uninjured shoulder. The secondary aim was to correlate these radiographic parameters with post-operative shoulder function. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients (age: 55.6 ± 14.4 years, age at surgery) following angular stable plate fixation of a proximal humeral fracture (2-part fractures according to Neer: 24, 3-part: 25, 4-part: 9) were included in this retrospective cohort study. All patients were followed up at least six years (7.9 ± 1.4 after surgical intervention). During follow-up examination, the Constant score (CS) was assessed, and radiographs of both shoulders were taken. Radiographs were analyzed regarding lateral humeral offset, distance between tuberculum and head apex, head diameter, head height, perpendicular height, perpendicular center, vertical height, and angles between head and humeral shaft (CCD and HSA). These parameters were compared between the injured and uninjured shoulder. The cohort was divided in two groups: patients with a CS category of excellent/good and satisfying/worse. Both groups were tested regarding differences of demographic and radiographic parameters. RESULTS: The distance between tuberculum and head apex (2.6 ± 3.4 mm vs. 4.3 ± 2.1 mm; p = 0.0017), the CCD (123.1 ± 12.9° vs. 130.1 ± 7.3°; p = 0.0005), and the HSA (33.1 ± 12.8° vs. 40.1 ± 7.3°; p = 0.0066) were significantly smaller on the treated shoulder compared to the uninjured side. Patients reached a Constant score of 80.2 ± 17.4 (95% CI 75.6-84.8) points. Regarding outcome categories of the Constant score, 46 patients had a good to excellent outcome, and 12 patients had a satisfying or bad outcome. The comparison of these groups revealed that patients with inferior outcome in the long-term follow-up were older, female, had a more complex fracture type (AO classification), smaller lateral humeral offset, smaller head diameter and height, lower perpendicular height, and lower CCD and HSA angles. CONCLUSION: If the abovementioned parameters cannot be restored sufficiently during surgery, (reversed) shoulder arthroplasty might be a better solution to reach good post-operative outcome. Moreover, patients presenting these radiographic characteristics in the follow-up, older patients, and patients with a more complex fracture type should be followed up closer to possibly prevent poor shoulder function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 83 250/2011BO2.

Evaluation of the Constant score: which is the method to assess the objective strength?

BACKGROUND: The Constant score (CS) is one of the most frequently applied tools for the assessment of the shoulder joint. However, evaluation of strength is not standardized leading to potential bias when comparing different studies. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with fractures of the proximal humerus undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were assessed using standardized CS strength measurements at the deltoid muscle insertion and at the wrist in three different arm positions. Variation coefficients were evaluated for each patient and position. RESULTS: Forty women (57%) and 36 men (43%) were examined 96 months in mean after ORIF. We could state a maximum of 105.3 N difference if measurements were performed at the wrist or the insertion of the deltoid muscle in 90° forward flexion on the injured arm (167.9 ± 83.1 N; 62.6 ± 29.4 N). The lowest variation coefficient of the three performed measurements could be stated at the deltoid muscle insertion in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane (6.94 ± 5.5). CONCLUSION: Following our study results, different positions of force measurement can change the total CS by a whole category (e.g. "very good" to "good"). We recommend performing the measurement at the insertion of the deltoid muscle in a 90° abduction position in the scapula plane. Otherwise, even in the non-injured, it is hard to reach a "normal" shoulder function, based on the CS. When using the CS as outcome parameter, authors must give detailed information about the force measuring and use an exact measuring device.

Which parameters affect medium- to long-term results after angular stable plate fixation for proximal humeral fractures?

BACKGROUND: Very little information on medium- to long-term results is available for surgically treated proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this prospective treatment study was to present long-term results after angular stable plate fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures and to detect which specific patient- and fracture-related parameters affect the clinical outcome. METHODS: We performed a prospective clinical and radiologic evaluation of 77 patients with a displaced proximal humeral fracture (28 Neer 2-part, 38 3-part, and 11 4-part fractures; 28 AO A fractures, 30 AO B fractures, and 19 AO C fractures) treated with angular stable plate fixation after a mean follow-up period of 96 months (range, 74-133 months). We assessed outcomes with the Constant, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores and evaluated specific patient- and fracture-related parameters including complications. RESULTS: The mean Constant, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores were 79, 31, and 12 points. Reasons for revisions were implant-related impingement (n = 13), screw perforation (n = 10), infection (n = 4), and secondary fracture displacement (n = 1). There was a significant association between worse score results and occurrence of secondary fracture displacement, screw perforation, residual bone deformities, and a rotator cuff defect at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Good medium- to long-term results after angular stable plate fixation of displaced proximal humeral fracture can be expected. A reconstruction within a range of 15° in both anteroposterior and axillary views and <5-mm tuberosity displacement should be the aim of head-preserving surgery to prevent complications, such as secondary fracture displacement and screw perforation, and a less favorable long-term result.

Comparability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Clinical Assessment Tools for Shoulder Function in Patients with Proximal Humeral Fracture. / Vergleichbarkeit subjektiver, durch den Patienten beantworteter Feedbackfragebögen und klinischer Fragebögen zur Beurteilung der Schulterfunktion bei Patienten mit proximaler Humerusfraktur.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining increasing importance in the context of quality management. Different PROMs and scoring tools are available to assess shoulder function after proximal humeral fracture (PHFx). In Europe, these include the Constant-Murley Score (CS), Neer Score (NS), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), University of California at Los Angeles Score (UCLA) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hands Score (DASH). In addition, the health-related quality of life can be assessed by the PROMs Short Form 36 (SF-36) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Although all these test instruments assess shoulder function, the components to be answered objectively and subjectively vary and thus the possibility of independent assessment. The aim of the present study is to compare the correlation between the results of the different PROMs and the clinical screening tools in patients with PHFx. METHODS: 76 patients who were treated with angular stable plate osteosynthesis for a proximal humeral fracture between 01/2001 and 12/2005 were included in this trial. The outcome was measured with PROMs or clinical scoring tools such as CS, NS, OSS, UCLA, DASH, SF-36 and EQ-5D and a correlation coefficient between those evaluation tools was calculated. In addition, a distinction was made between the two force measurement methods (wrist [HG] vs. deltoid muscle [DM]) for CS. RESULTS: The correlation of the results of CS and NS (HG: r = 0.85; p < 0.001/DM: r = 0.93; p < 0.001), CS and UCLA (HG: r = 0.83; p < 0.001/DM: r = 0.86; p < 0.001), NS and UCLA (r = 0.91; p < 0.001) as well as DASH and OSS (r = 0.88; p < 0.001) was strongly expressed. A good comparability of the results was demonstrated between CS and OSS (HG: r = 0.63; p < 0.001/DM: r = 0.66; p < 0.001) and between CS and DASH (HG: r = 0.62; p < 0.001/DM: r = 0.61; p < 0.001). The correlation of CS (HG/DM) and UCLA with the EQ-5D index was also good. Assessment of the physical components of SF-36 with CS, NS, OSS, UCLA and DASH showed a moderate to good association, while the mental components of SF-36 showed a low correlation (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The assessment of shoulder function after proximal humerus fracture showed a very strong correlation within the clinical questionnaires (CS/NS/UCLA) and the PROMs (OSS/DASH). A strong correlation also exists between the clinical questionnaires and the PROMs. There was only a moderate correlation with the EQ-5D. The moderate to strong correlation between the physical components of SF-36, with almost no correlation between the mental components of SF-36, indicates that the quality of life restriction is based on a physical, but not on a mental impairment.