proximal humerus fractures where are we now 092016-pt

26
9/9/2016 1 Bryan Houseman, D.O., ATC Orthopaedic Trauma and Fracture Surgeon New Hampshire Orthopaedic Center September 10, 2016 I have no relevant disclosures pertaining to this talk.

Upload: others

Post on 06-Apr-2022

10 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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.

Page 2: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 3: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 4: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 5: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 6: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

6

STABILITY

Stable Unstable

A spectrum

A spectrum Day 11

Follow “stable” non‐op closely

Page 7: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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?

Page 8: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 9: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 10: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 11: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 12: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

12

Tuberosities ‐ reduction

Tuberosities ‐ reduction

Tuberosities ‐ fixation

From Rockwood & Green, 8th ed

Page 13: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 14: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 15: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 16: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 17: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

17

1) Anatomical reduction helps

Page 18: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

18

Page 19: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 20: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 21: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 22: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

22

1. Varus collapse

Page 23: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

23

Page 24: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

24

2. Axial sliding

Courtesy D. Barei

Page 25: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

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

Page 26: Proximal Humerus Fractures Where are We Now 092016-PT

9/9/2016

26

[email protected]

www.nhoc.com

Questions?