Cement-augmented locked plate fixation proximal humerus fractures in elderly patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of proximal humeral fracture in elderly patient fixation using locked plate with or without cement augmentation. METHODS: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023 for literature comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with PHFs treated with locked plate alone and locked plate augmented with cement. Data describing study design; level of evidence; inclusion criteria; demographic information; final follow-up; revision rate; implant failure rate; avascular necrosis rate; total complication rate; constant score; and disability of arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score were collected. RESULTS: Eight studies (one randomized-controlled trial and seven observational studies), involving 664 patients, were identified. Compared with locked plates alone, using cement-augmented locked plates reduced the implant failure rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.39; P < 0.0001) and total complication rate (OR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.29-0.69; P = 0.0002) and improved DASH scores (mean difference (MD) = 2.99; 95% CI 1.00-4.98; P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes, including revision rate, avascular necrosis rate, and constant score. CONCLUSION: In this review and meta-analysis, fixation of the PHFs in elderly patients using locked plates with or without cement augmentation has no significant difference in revision rate, but the implant failure and total complication rates may be lesser on using the cement-augmented locked plate for fixation than on using a locked plate alone. Good results are expected for most patients treated with this technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)21 guidelines were followed to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis and was registered as a protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022318798).