Cargando…

Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of plate fixation and arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation in patients with displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity. METHODS: From July 2013 to October 2017, patients with displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Qi, Ge, Wei, Li, Gen, Wu, Jie Zhou, Lu, Guanghua, Li, Runmin, Zhao, Zhenyu, Zhu, Yaru, Xu, Youzhi, Wang, Lei, Cai, Ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33073535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12773
_version_ 1783610677684862976
author Sun, Qi
Ge, Wei
Li, Gen
Wu, Jie Zhou
Lu, Guanghua
Li, Runmin
Zhao, Zhenyu
Zhu, Yaru
Xu, Youzhi
Wang, Lei
Cai, Ming
author_facet Sun, Qi
Ge, Wei
Li, Gen
Wu, Jie Zhou
Lu, Guanghua
Li, Runmin
Zhao, Zhenyu
Zhu, Yaru
Xu, Youzhi
Wang, Lei
Cai, Ming
author_sort Sun, Qi
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of plate fixation and arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation in patients with displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity. METHODS: From July 2013 to October 2017, patients with displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity who underwent arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation (ASPF group) or open reduction and internal plate fixation (ORIF group) were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. There were 19 patients in the ASPF group and 27 patients in the ORIF group, with comparable demographic characteristics. The average age of patients was 49.4 ± 12.1 years in the ASPF group and 46.9 ± 11.4 years in the ORIF group. The shoulder function reflected by the Constant–Murley (CS) scores, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and the range of motion (ROM) in the both groups at the last follow‐up were analyzed in the study. Surgery time, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications were also reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 46 eligible patients were included in this study. The mean follow‐up was similar for the ASPF (19.4 ± 3.7 months) and the ORIF (18.2 ± 3.2 months) groups (P = 0.372). All patients had achieved primary incision healing in both groups at the last follow‐up. The surgery time was 96.8 ± 11.7 min and 64.2 ± 8.3 min in the ASPF group and the ORIF group, respectively (P < 0.01). All the CS scores (P = 0.278), ASES scores (P = 0.426), and ROM were slightly better in the ASPF group than in the ORIF group, but they did not attain significant differences. In addition, there was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate between the ASPF group (10.5%) and the ORIF group (18.5%) (P = 0.522). In the ASPF group, there was only one patient with postoperative shoulder stiffness and one case of fracture malunion. In the ORIF group, there were two cases of postoperative shoulder stiffness, two cases of fracture malunoin, and one case of subacromial impingement. Other major postoperative complications, such as fracture nonunion, pullout of the suture anchor, and screw penetration, were not observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation is effective and may be an alternative in the treatment of displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7670132
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76701322020-11-23 Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study Sun, Qi Ge, Wei Li, Gen Wu, Jie Zhou Lu, Guanghua Li, Runmin Zhao, Zhenyu Zhu, Yaru Xu, Youzhi Wang, Lei Cai, Ming Orthop Surg Clinical Articles OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of plate fixation and arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation in patients with displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity. METHODS: From July 2013 to October 2017, patients with displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity who underwent arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation (ASPF group) or open reduction and internal plate fixation (ORIF group) were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. There were 19 patients in the ASPF group and 27 patients in the ORIF group, with comparable demographic characteristics. The average age of patients was 49.4 ± 12.1 years in the ASPF group and 46.9 ± 11.4 years in the ORIF group. The shoulder function reflected by the Constant–Murley (CS) scores, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and the range of motion (ROM) in the both groups at the last follow‐up were analyzed in the study. Surgery time, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications were also reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 46 eligible patients were included in this study. The mean follow‐up was similar for the ASPF (19.4 ± 3.7 months) and the ORIF (18.2 ± 3.2 months) groups (P = 0.372). All patients had achieved primary incision healing in both groups at the last follow‐up. The surgery time was 96.8 ± 11.7 min and 64.2 ± 8.3 min in the ASPF group and the ORIF group, respectively (P < 0.01). All the CS scores (P = 0.278), ASES scores (P = 0.426), and ROM were slightly better in the ASPF group than in the ORIF group, but they did not attain significant differences. In addition, there was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate between the ASPF group (10.5%) and the ORIF group (18.5%) (P = 0.522). In the ASPF group, there was only one patient with postoperative shoulder stiffness and one case of fracture malunion. In the ORIF group, there were two cases of postoperative shoulder stiffness, two cases of fracture malunoin, and one case of subacromial impingement. Other major postoperative complications, such as fracture nonunion, pullout of the suture anchor, and screw penetration, were not observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation is effective and may be an alternative in the treatment of displaced isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7670132/ /pubmed/33073535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12773 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Articles
Sun, Qi
Ge, Wei
Li, Gen
Wu, Jie Zhou
Lu, Guanghua
Li, Runmin
Zhao, Zhenyu
Zhu, Yaru
Xu, Youzhi
Wang, Lei
Cai, Ming
Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study
title Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study
title_full Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study
title_short Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic‐Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium‐Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study
title_sort plate fixation versus arthroscopic‐assisted plate fixation for isolated medium‐sized fractures of the greater tuberosity: a retrospective study
topic Clinical Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33073535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12773
work_keys_str_mv AT sunqi platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT gewei platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT ligen platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT wujiezhou platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT luguanghua platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT lirunmin platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT zhaozhenyu platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT zhuyaru platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT xuyouzhi platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT wanglei platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy
AT caiming platefixationversusarthroscopicassistedplatefixationforisolatedmediumsizedfracturesofthegreatertuberosityaretrospectivestudy