De Santiago ELA, Carrillo SAM, Pérez GCK, Amador VG, Antonio RCE

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 356-359
PDF size: 157.00 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The proximal humerus fracture has an incidence that increases as the age of the population increases. A deterioration in the functionality of the upper extremities can mean an alteration in the functionality and quality of life of individuals. Material and methods: Pilot, longitudinal, prospective and analytical study. Where patients over 50 years old who presented a proximal humerus fracture of 3 or 4 fragments treated at the Regional Hospital “Gral. Ignacio Zaragoza” of ISSSTE from January to December 2018. To whom arthroplasty or osteosynthesis was performed. Following them for one year, at the end of which a functionality analysis was performed with the ASES score. Results: 23 patients were assigned into two groups, the osteosynthesis of 12 patients and 11 for arthroplasty. The average age of each group was 65.25 ± 8.15 years and 69.36 ± 6.57 years respectively. The score for the ASES scale was 49.17 ± 12.09 for osteosynthesis and 58 ± 11.89 in cases of arthroplasty, no significant difference was found between both treatments (p = 0.0923). Conclusion: Between arthroplasty and osteosynthesis as a treatment for a proximal humerus fracture in adults over 50 years of age there is no difference, according to the ASES assessment scale.

REFERENCES

1. Radulescu R, Badila A, Nutiu O, Japie I, Terinte S, Radulescu D et al. Osteosynthesis in fractures of the distal third of humeral diaphysis. Maedica (Buchar). 2014; 9 (1): 44-48.

2. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Secular trends in distal humeral fractures of elderly women: nationwide statistics in Finland between 1970 and 2007. Bone. 2010; 46 (5): 1355-1358.

3. Jawa A, Burnikel D. Treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2016; 4 (1). 01874474-201601000-00002.

4. Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ. Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17 (1): 42-54.

5. Terry CS, Beaty JH. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. Fracturas y luxaciones, Vol. 6, 11a ed. Madrid, España; Elsevier España. 2010, pp. 2920-3002.

6. Sebastia-Forcada E, Cebrian-Gomez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gil-Guillen V. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23 (10): 1419-1426.

7. Tafoya-Arreguín GA, de Jesús Martínez-Ruíz J, Esqueda-Godoy RD, Arce-Rosas JI. Fracturas de húmero distal: osteosíntesis versus artroplastia total de codo. Revista Medica MD. 2017; 8 (2): 60-63.

8. Schumaier A, Grawe B. Proximal humerus fractures: evaluation and management in the elderly patient. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2018; 9: 1-11.

9. Ellwein A, Lill H, Voigt C, Wirtz P, Jensen G, Katthagen JC. Arthroplasty compared to internal fixation by locking plate osteosynthesis in comminuted fractures of the distal humerus. Int Orthop. 2015; 39 (4): 747-754.

10. Wylie J, Beckman J, Tashjian R. Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery. World J Orthop. 2014; 5 (5): 623-633.

11. Launonen AP, Lepola V, Saranko A, Flinkkila T, Laitinen M, Mattila VM. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Osteoporos. 2015; 10: 209.

12. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006; 37 (8): 691-697.

13. Patiño O, Beribé R, Bordachar D, Intelangelo L, Araya RA. Análisis de equivalencia entre cuatro escalas de evaluación funcional del hombro en pacientes operados del manguito de los rotadores y en pacientes con diagnóstico de hombro doloroso: estudio transversal y observacional. Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología. 2011; 76: 41-46.

14. Arcuri F, Abalo E, Barclay F. Uso de escores para evaluación de la inestabilidad de hombro. Artroscopia. 2012; 19 (1): 67-72.

15. Bastian JD, Hertel R. Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18 (2): 216-219.

16. Hardeman F, Bollars P, Donnelly M, Bellemans J, Nijs S. Predictive factors for functional outcome and failure in angular stable osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus. Injury. 2012; 43 (2): 153-158.

17. Shannon SF, Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Cross WW, Sánchez-Sotelo J. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: outcomes comparing primary reverse arthroplasty for fracture versus reverse arthroplasty after failed osteosynthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25 (10): 1655-1660.

18. Russo R, Della RG. Reverse shoulder prosthesis to treat complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly patients: results after 10-year experience. Musculoskelet Surg. 2015; 99 (Suppl 1): s17.23.

19. Schairer W, Benedict U, Lyman S. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24 (10): 1560-1506.

20. Boyle M, Youn S, Frampton C. Functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22 (1): 32-37.