Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Sep 16;8(9):e75464.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075464. eCollection 2013.

Internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yongchuan Li  1 , Liangyu Zhao, Lei Zhu, Jing Li, Aimin Chen
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yongchuan Li et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: A few studies focused on open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients have been published, all of whom had a low number of patients. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we aimed to assess the effect of ORIF or nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients on the clinical outcomes and re-evaluate of the potential benefits of conservative treatment.

Methods: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized controlled trials comparing ORIF and nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Our outcome measures were the Constant scores.

Results: Three randomized controlled trials with a total of 130 patients were identified and analyzed. The overall results based on fixed-effect model did not support the treatment of open reduction and internal fixation to improve the functional outcome when compared with nonoperative treatment for treating elderly patients with displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures (WMD -0.51, 95% CI: -7.25 to 6.22, P = 0.88, I(2) = 0%).

Conclusions: Although our meta-analysis did not support the treatment of open reduction and internal fixation to improve the functional outcome when compared with nonoperative treatment for treating elderly patients with displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures, this result must be considered in the context of variable patient demographics. Only a limited recommendation can be made based on current data. Considering the limitations of included studies, a large, well designed trial that incorporates the evaluation of clinically relevant outcomes in participants with different underlying risks of shoulder function is required to more adequately assess the role for ORIF or nonoperative treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study selection diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plot of mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for constant scores among patients assigned to ORIF versus nonoperative treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plot of risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the incidence of nonunion among patients assigned to ORIF versus nonoperative treatment.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plot of risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the incidence of AVN among patients assigned to ORIF versus nonoperative treatment.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Forest plot of risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the incidence of osteoarthritis among patients assigned to ORIF versus nonoperative treatment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Horak J, Nilsson BE (1975) Epidemiology of fracture of the upper end of the humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res (112): 250–3. - PubMed
    1. Bengner U, Johnell O, Redlund-Johnell I (1988) Changes in the incidence of fracture of the upper end of the humerus during a 30-year period. A study of 2125 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res (231): 179–82. - PubMed
    1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B (2006) Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury 37(8): 691–7. - PubMed
    1. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72(4): 365–71. - PubMed
    1. Gaebler C, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM (2003) Minimally displaced proximal humeral fractures: epidemiology and outcome in 507 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 74(5): 580–5. - PubMed

Publication types