medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2014, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2014; 28 (4)

Functional results for Neer III-IV fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty

Estrada-Malacón CA, Torres-Zavala A, Navarro-González BE, Fonseca-Bernal M

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 224-227
PDF size: 132.19 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the functional results of patients who sustained Neer III-IV shoulder fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. Material and methods: Descriptive, ambispective, cross-sectional study. From January to December 2011 patient records were reviewed, a functional assessment was performed using the Constant scale, and the DASH questionnaire was applied. Data was analyzed with the SPSS software, descriptive statistics and frequency analysis. Results: Sixteen patients were evaluated, mean age was 60.9 years (p = 0.004); females represented 56.3% (p = 0.001). The mechanism of injury was low energy trauma in 93.8%. According to the Constant scale, whose maximum score is 100, the score of our population was 40.75 (± 14.42). The highest prevalence rates corresponded to: middle pain, 8 (50%); work with full performance, 7 (43.75%); painful range of motion up to the xyphoid process (37.5%). Ranges of motion were as follows: abduction 30-60o 10 (62.5% p = 0.004), flexion 30-60o 6 (37.5%), external rotation, 14 (87.5%) with the hand behind the head, internal rotation up to the lumbosacral region, 7 (43.75% p = 0.005). Power of up to 3 kilograms, 5 (31.3% p = 0.005). Poor results were seen in 13 (81.3%) patients. The DASH question naire results were: disability/symptoms, 12 (75%) and special activities, 7 (43.75%) good results; in the work module, 8 (50%) fair results. Satisfaction with the surgical procedure, 87.5 percent. Conclusions: In this patient sample the function of the operated shoulder was considered as poor according to the Constant scale; it was good considering the symptoms and special activities, and fair for the work module, according to the DASH questionnaire.


REFERENCES

  1. Robinson CM, Murray IR, Amin AK: Proximal humeral fractures. The Shoulder Injury Clinic. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2011; 93: 1-11.

  2. Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM: Impacted valgus fracture (B 1.1). J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2002; 84-B(4): 504-8.

  3. Szyskowitz, R, Seggl W, Schleifer P, et al: Proximal humeral fractures: management and expected results. Clin Orthop. 1993; 292: 13-25.

  4. Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. Part I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg. 1970; 52-A: 1077-89.

  5. Hertel R, Hempfing A, Steihler M, Leunig M: Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(4): 427-33.

  6. Neer CS: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. Part II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1970; 52-A: 1090-1103.

  7. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, Mc Queen MM: The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001; 72: 365-71.

  8. Robinson CM, Khan LAK, Akhtar MA: Treatment of anterior fracture-dislocations of the proximal humerus by open reduction and internal fixation. The Shoulder Injury Clinic. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2006; 88: 502-8.

  9. Silfverskiöld N: On the treatment of fracture-dislocations of the shoulder-joint with special reference to the capability of the head-fragment, disconnected from capsule and periosteum to enter into bony union. Act Chir Scandinavica. 1928; 64: 227-93.

  10. Hawkins RJ, Keifer GN: Internal Fixation techniques for proximal humerus fracture. Clin Orthop. 1987; 223: 77-85.

  11. Neer CS, Brown TH Jr, McLaughlin HL: Fracture of neck of the humerus with dislocation of the head fragment. Am J Surgery. 1953; 85: 252-8.

  12. Moeckel BH, Dines DM, Warren RF: Modular hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992; 74: 884-9.

  13. Shaffer BS, Giordano CP, Zuckerman JD: La revisión de un componente glenoideo suelto facilitado por un componenete humeral modular. Una nota técnica. J Artroplastía.1990; 5 (Suppl): S579-S81.

  14. Robinson CM, Akhtar A, Mitchell M, Beavis C: Complex posterior fracture-dislocation of the shoulder: epidemiology, injury patterns, and results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2007; 89-A: 1454-66.

  15. Young TB, Wallace WA: Conservative treatment of fracture dislocations of the upper limb of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1895; 67: 373-7.

  16. Robinson CM, Page RS: Severely impacted valgus proximal humeral fractures: results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2003; 85-A: 1647-55.

  17. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM : The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus: epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2001; 83-B: 799-804.

  18. Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM : Impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus: the results of non-operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2002; 84-B: 504-8.

  19. Constant CR, Murley AHG: A Clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop. 1987; 214: 160-4.

  20. Dorcas EB, James G, Wright MD: Development of the Quick DASH: Comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005; 87-A: 1038-46.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com