Cargando…

Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty

INTRODUCTION: The clinical outcome of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures is not satisfactory. Secondary fragment dislocation may prevent bone integration; the primary stability by a fixation technique is therefore needed to accomplish tuberosity healing. Present technical comparison of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baumgartner, Daniel, Nolan, Betsy M, Mathys, Robert, Lorenzetti, Silvio Rene, Stüssi, Edgar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21762540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-36
_version_ 1782210363895316480
author Baumgartner, Daniel
Nolan, Betsy M
Mathys, Robert
Lorenzetti, Silvio Rene
Stüssi, Edgar
author_facet Baumgartner, Daniel
Nolan, Betsy M
Mathys, Robert
Lorenzetti, Silvio Rene
Stüssi, Edgar
author_sort Baumgartner, Daniel
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The clinical outcome of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures is not satisfactory. Secondary fragment dislocation may prevent bone integration; the primary stability by a fixation technique is therefore needed to accomplish tuberosity healing. Present technical comparison of surgical fixation techniques reveals the state-of-the-art approach and highlights promising techniques for enhanced stability. METHOD: A classification of available fixation techniques for three- and four part fractures was done. The placement of sutures and cables was described on the basis of anatomical landmarks such as the rotator cuff tendon insertions, the bicipital groove and the surgical neck. Groups with similar properties were categorized. RESULTS: Materials used for fragment fixation include heavy braided sutures and/or metallic cables, which are passed through drilling holes in the bone fragments. The classification resulted in four distinct groups: A: both tuberosities and shaft are fixed together by one suture, B: single tuberosities are independently connected to the shaft and among each other, C: metallic cables are used in addition to the sutures and D: the fragments are connected by short stitches, close to the fragment borderlines. CONCLUSIONS: A plurality of techniques for the reconstruction of a fractured proximal humerus is found. The categorisation into similar strategies provides a broad overview of present techniques and supports a further development of optimized techniques. Prospective studies are necessary to correlate the technique with the clinical outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3158110
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31581102011-08-19 Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty Baumgartner, Daniel Nolan, Betsy M Mathys, Robert Lorenzetti, Silvio Rene Stüssi, Edgar J Orthop Surg Res Review INTRODUCTION: The clinical outcome of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures is not satisfactory. Secondary fragment dislocation may prevent bone integration; the primary stability by a fixation technique is therefore needed to accomplish tuberosity healing. Present technical comparison of surgical fixation techniques reveals the state-of-the-art approach and highlights promising techniques for enhanced stability. METHOD: A classification of available fixation techniques for three- and four part fractures was done. The placement of sutures and cables was described on the basis of anatomical landmarks such as the rotator cuff tendon insertions, the bicipital groove and the surgical neck. Groups with similar properties were categorized. RESULTS: Materials used for fragment fixation include heavy braided sutures and/or metallic cables, which are passed through drilling holes in the bone fragments. The classification resulted in four distinct groups: A: both tuberosities and shaft are fixed together by one suture, B: single tuberosities are independently connected to the shaft and among each other, C: metallic cables are used in addition to the sutures and D: the fragments are connected by short stitches, close to the fragment borderlines. CONCLUSIONS: A plurality of techniques for the reconstruction of a fractured proximal humerus is found. The categorisation into similar strategies provides a broad overview of present techniques and supports a further development of optimized techniques. Prospective studies are necessary to correlate the technique with the clinical outcome. BioMed Central 2011-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3158110/ /pubmed/21762540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-36 Text en Copyright ©2011 Baumgartner et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Baumgartner, Daniel
Nolan, Betsy M
Mathys, Robert
Lorenzetti, Silvio Rene
Stüssi, Edgar
Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
title Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
title_full Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
title_fullStr Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
title_short Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
title_sort review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21762540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-36
work_keys_str_mv AT baumgartnerdaniel reviewoffixationtechniquesforthefourpartfracturedproximalhumerusinhemiarthroplasty
AT nolanbetsym reviewoffixationtechniquesforthefourpartfracturedproximalhumerusinhemiarthroplasty
AT mathysrobert reviewoffixationtechniquesforthefourpartfracturedproximalhumerusinhemiarthroplasty
AT lorenzettisilviorene reviewoffixationtechniquesforthefourpartfracturedproximalhumerusinhemiarthroplasty
AT stussiedgar reviewoffixationtechniquesforthefourpartfracturedproximalhumerusinhemiarthroplasty