proximal humerus fractures where are we now 092016-pt
TRANSCRIPT
9/9/2016
1
Bryan Houseman, D.O., ATCOrthopaedicTrauma and Fracture Surgeon
New Hampshire Orthopaedic Center
September 10, 2016
I have no relevant disclosures pertaining to this talk.
9/9/2016
2
Extremely common “Osteoporotic fracture”
High energy
Complicating factors Poor bone quality
Require early motion
Difficult to: Get a good reduction
Maintain reduction
Get a good functional outcome
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
9/9/2016
3
GrasheyAP
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
Axillary view is critical
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
CT ScanHead split
High‐energy/ comminuted
Fracture‐dislocations?
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
9/9/2016
4
Understand fragments and their displacement
Greater tuberosity
Lesser tuberosity
Epi/metaphysis Anatomic vssurgical neck
Neer (1970): 1 cm, 45° based on “parts”
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
Maximize function Stable fixation if unstable fracture
Early rehab
Minimize pain
9/9/2016
5
Who and What is your patient?
Age (physiologic)
Cognitive status
Activity level
Injury mechanism
Associated injuries
Fracture characteristics
Fragment size
Displacement
Bone quality
Varus vs valgus
The majority of fractures are stable and can be successfully treated…
non‐operatively
9/9/2016
6
STABILITY
Stable Unstable
A spectrum
A spectrum Day 11
Follow “stable” non‐op closely
9/9/2016
7
Multiple variables contribute to stability Displacement
Angulation▪ Varus
Metaphyseal comminution▪ Medial
Thresholds not clear
Questions:
Is the fracture likely to displace with physiologic activity?
Is the fracture likely to heal in its position?
If it heals in present position, is it likely to impair function?
Can the patient do physical therapy to reap the benefits of surgery?
9/9/2016
8
Koval et al., JBJS, 1997
77% good or excellent; 13% fair, 10% poor results
Functional recovery averaged 94%
Sling with ROM exercises by 2 weeks
Court‐Brown et al., JBJS(B), 2001
Mean age 72 yrs
Outcome determined by age and degree oftranslation
Surgery did not improve outcomes regardlessof translation
250 patients, displaced proximal humerus fx Randomized – op vs non‐op 2 years – no difference “Displacement” defined by surgeon 66 surgeons – median 1 patient per surgeon Reduction quality not assessed
JAMA 2015
9/9/2016
9
Many implants described for displaced/ unstable fractures
Historically many difficulties
Currently, locking plates used most commonly
Technical factors critical
Authors Locked plating Hemiarthroplasty
Solberg 2009 69 61
Dietrich 2008 71 41
Thalhammer 2009 74
Sudkamp 2009 71
Rouleau 2009 80
Koukakis 2006 76
Bjorkenheim 2004 72
Besch 2009 55
Fialka 2008 52
Zyto 2008 46
Leow 2006 52
Kralinger 2008 55
Kontakis, JBJS Br 2008:
Metaanalysis of 810 hemis for fx
Constant Score 56.6
9/9/2016
10
Pain relief is generally good
Function depends mainly on tuberosity healing, and is often binary
Despite all the advances, shoulder flexion >90 deg difficult to achieve
Last salvage option used for acute fracture?
Early results promising for function
Long‐term results unclear
Chronic instability or infection is disastrous
Jury is still out on precise indications
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
Early series –successful outcomes difficult to achieve
Systematic review:
Implant failure 11.6%
Reoperation 13.7% Implant failure directly related to reduction accuracy
Thanasas et al., JSES 2009
9/9/2016
11
Anterior humeral circumflex
Ascending branch
PHCA
Posteromedialplexus
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
Hettrich et al, JBJS 2010
Gerber et al., JBJS 1990
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
Tuberosity reduction is critical Establish “egg cup” to support head segment
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
9/9/2016
12
Tuberosities ‐ reduction
Tuberosities ‐ reduction
Tuberosities ‐ fixation
From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed
9/9/2016
13
Anatomic/surgical neck component Rules #1‐5: Do not leave head/neck in varus Also: restore calcar/Shenton line; support medial head
In pts >60 yrs: 57% complications
43% screw cut out
Worse outcomes
Owsley & Gorczyca, JBJS 2008
Mechanical failure
N = 153
30% when head‐shaft angle < 120⁰
11% when > 120⁰
Failure not associated with age or # of screws
Agudelo et al, JOT 2007
9/9/2016
14
Mechanical failure
70 patients > 55 yrs
In varus fractures: 79% complications
▪ 21% perforation
▪ 13% reduction loss
▪ 71% malreduced
Solberg B, et al. JOT 2009
9/9/2016
15
≠
46 yo M 78 yo M
Risk stratification for implant failure
What we’ve learned:
High complication rate without technical accuracy
Solberg et al, JOT 2009Thanassas et al, JSES 2009Owsley & Corczyca, JBJS 2008
1) Unsupported calcar comminution
Osterhoff et al, Injury 2012
Lee et al, JSES 2009
Krappinger, Injury 2011
Gardner et al, JOT 2007
Solberg et al, JOT 2009
Lescheid et al, JT 2010
9/9/2016
16
2) Osteoporosis
Krappinger, Injury 2011
Owsley, Gorczyca JBJS 2008
3) Initial varus pattern
Solberg et al, JOT 2009
Hardeman et al, Injury 2012
4) Malreduction (esp varus)
Krappinger, Injury 2011
Agudelo et al, JOT 2007
Solberg et al, JOT 2009
9/9/2016
17
1) Anatomical reduction helps
9/9/2016
18
9/9/2016
19
2) Inferomedial (“calcar”) screws help
Zhang et al, Int Orthop 2011
Gardner et al, JOT 2007
Konigshausen et al, Injury 2012
“Medial support”=1. Reduction of medial cortex
(competent) OR2. Shaft medialized w/ impacted
headOR3. Locking screws
inferomedially in the humeral head fragment
Significantly Less reduction loss
Gardner MJ, et al, JOT 2007
Weaker bone superiorlyLonger screws centrally and inferiorly
Liew, et al, JSES 2000
9/9/2016
20
3) Cement augmentation helps
Egol et al, JSES 201282F, fall from standing
Defect after head disimpaction
POD 0
3 mos – healed and cement nearly fully resorbed
9/9/2016
21
4) Fibular strut allograft helps
Neviaser et al, CORR, 2011
Gardner et al, JOT 2008
Osterhoff et al, JSES 2012
Bae et al, JBJS‐B, 2011
Fibular strut : useful situations
1. Varus collapse2. Axial sliding (lateral defect)3. Nonunions4. Extensive metadiaphsyeal comminution
78M alcoholic, found down
9/9/2016
22
1. Varus collapse
9/9/2016
23
9/9/2016
24
2. Axial sliding
Courtesy D. Barei
9/9/2016
25
48M, roll‐over MVC
4. Metadiaphysealcomminution
1. Accurate imaging and diagnosis
Assess displacement and stability
2. Careful patient selection3. Biologically friendly dissection4. Reduction, reduction, reduction
Tuberosities; no neck varus; restore medial support
5. Deliberate implant positions
Low long screws
Cuff sutures tied to plate
6. Consider augmentation in complex cases