Cargando…

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)

PURPOSE: Osteosynthetic treatment strategies of PHFs include MIPO or ORIF techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the 1 year outcome following either technique in type B PHFs. METHODS: This study was designed as a retrospective cohort study of patients treated at one academic Level 1 trauma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buchmann, Laura, van Lieshout, Esther M. M., Zeelenberg, Miliaan, den Hartog, Dennis, Pfeifer, Roman, Allemann, Florin, Pape, Hans-Christoph, Halvachizadeh, Sascha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9712325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34216222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01733-w
_version_ 1784841761969930240
author Buchmann, Laura
van Lieshout, Esther M. M.
Zeelenberg, Miliaan
den Hartog, Dennis
Pfeifer, Roman
Allemann, Florin
Pape, Hans-Christoph
Halvachizadeh, Sascha
author_facet Buchmann, Laura
van Lieshout, Esther M. M.
Zeelenberg, Miliaan
den Hartog, Dennis
Pfeifer, Roman
Allemann, Florin
Pape, Hans-Christoph
Halvachizadeh, Sascha
author_sort Buchmann, Laura
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Osteosynthetic treatment strategies of PHFs include MIPO or ORIF techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the 1 year outcome following either technique in type B PHFs. METHODS: This study was designed as a retrospective cohort study of patients treated at one academic Level 1 trauma center. Patients from 2009 to 2019 who required surgical treatment of a type B PHF were eligible to be included in this study. Patients with A- or C-type fractures or patients requiring arthroplasty were excluded. All patients were treated with Proximal Humerus Interlocking System (PHILOS) and stratified according the approach into Group MIPO or Group ORIF. Outcome measures include local complications that occurred during hospitalization, nonunion after 12 months, and range of motion after 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 149 (75.3%) patients in Group ORIF, and 49 (24.7%) in Group MIPO. The fracture morphology and concomitant injuries were comparable amongst these groups. When compared with Group MIPO, Group ORIF had a 2.6 (95% CI 0.6–11.7) higher risk of suffering from local complications. The rate of postoperative nerve lesions was comparable (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.1–9.7) as was the rate of soft tissue complications (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.2–17.2). The risk for nonunion was 4.5 times higher (95% 1.1–19.5) in Group ORIF when compared with Group MIPO. Group MIPO had a higher chance of flexion above 90° (OR 8.2, 95% CI 2.5–27.7). CONCLUSION: This study provides indications that patients following surgical treatment of PHFs in MIPO technique might have favourable outcome. Large-scale and high-quality studies are warranted to confirm these results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9712325
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97123252022-12-02 Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) Buchmann, Laura van Lieshout, Esther M. M. Zeelenberg, Miliaan den Hartog, Dennis Pfeifer, Roman Allemann, Florin Pape, Hans-Christoph Halvachizadeh, Sascha Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Original Article PURPOSE: Osteosynthetic treatment strategies of PHFs include MIPO or ORIF techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the 1 year outcome following either technique in type B PHFs. METHODS: This study was designed as a retrospective cohort study of patients treated at one academic Level 1 trauma center. Patients from 2009 to 2019 who required surgical treatment of a type B PHF were eligible to be included in this study. Patients with A- or C-type fractures or patients requiring arthroplasty were excluded. All patients were treated with Proximal Humerus Interlocking System (PHILOS) and stratified according the approach into Group MIPO or Group ORIF. Outcome measures include local complications that occurred during hospitalization, nonunion after 12 months, and range of motion after 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 149 (75.3%) patients in Group ORIF, and 49 (24.7%) in Group MIPO. The fracture morphology and concomitant injuries were comparable amongst these groups. When compared with Group MIPO, Group ORIF had a 2.6 (95% CI 0.6–11.7) higher risk of suffering from local complications. The rate of postoperative nerve lesions was comparable (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.1–9.7) as was the rate of soft tissue complications (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.2–17.2). The risk for nonunion was 4.5 times higher (95% 1.1–19.5) in Group ORIF when compared with Group MIPO. Group MIPO had a higher chance of flexion above 90° (OR 8.2, 95% CI 2.5–27.7). CONCLUSION: This study provides indications that patients following surgical treatment of PHFs in MIPO technique might have favourable outcome. Large-scale and high-quality studies are warranted to confirm these results. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-07-03 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9712325/ /pubmed/34216222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01733-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Buchmann, Laura
van Lieshout, Esther M. M.
Zeelenberg, Miliaan
den Hartog, Dennis
Pfeifer, Roman
Allemann, Florin
Pape, Hans-Christoph
Halvachizadeh, Sascha
Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
title Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
title_full Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
title_fullStr Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
title_full_unstemmed Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
title_short Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
title_sort proximal humerus fractures (phfs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (mipo) versus open reduction internal fixation (orif)
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9712325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34216222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01733-w
work_keys_str_mv AT buchmannlaura proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT vanlieshoutesthermm proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT zeelenbergmiliaan proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT denhartogdennis proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT pfeiferroman proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT allemannflorin proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT papehanschristoph proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif
AT halvachizadehsascha proximalhumerusfracturesphfscomparisonoffunctionaloutcome1yearafterminimallyinvasiveplateosteosynthesismipoversusopenreductioninternalfixationorif