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
Review
. 2017 Sep 25;12(1):137.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0639-3.

Current concepts in locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures

Affiliations
Review

Current concepts in locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures

Christoph J Laux et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Despite numerous available treatment strategies, the management of complex proximal humeral fractures remains demanding. Impaired bone quality and considerable comorbidities pose special challenges in the growing aging population. Complications after operative treatment are frequent, in particular loss of reduction with varus malalignment and subsequent screw cutout. Locking plate fixation has become a standard in stabilizing these fractures, but surgical revision rates of up to 25% stagnate at high levels. Therefore, it seems of utmost importance to select the right treatment for the right patient. This article provides an overview of available classification systems, indications for operative treatment, important pathoanatomic principles, and latest surgical strategies in locking plate fixation. The importance of correct reduction of the medial cortices, the use of calcar screws, augmentation with bone cement, double-plate fixation, and auxiliary intramedullary bone graft stabilization are discussed in detail.

Keywords: Bone graft; Calcar screws; Cement augmentation; Locking plate fixation; Medial support; Proximal humeral fracture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Case of a 71-year-old female patient with a proximal humerus 3-part fracture with an impacted articular fragment (a, b). Due to the substantial metaphyseal loss of trabecular bone matrix, a fibula allograft (dashed outline) was used to support the locking plate fixation construct (c)

References

    1. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Sievänen H, Parkkari J. Rate of proximal humeral fractures in older Finnish women between 1970 and 2007. Bone. 2009;44:656–659. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2008.12.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fjalestad T, Hole MØ. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: operative versus non-operative treatment—a 2-year extension of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24:1067–73. doi: 10.1007/s00590-013-1403-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ring D. Current concepts in plate and screw fixation of osteoporotic proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2007;38(SUPPL. 3):59–68. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.08.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bahrs C, Tanja S, Gunnar B, Stig B, Badke A, Ulrich S, Bernd R, Thomas F. Trends in epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. 2014;38:1697–1704. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2362-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maier D, Jäger M, Strohm PC, Südkamp NP. Treatment of proximal humeral fractures—a review of current concepts enlightened by basic principles. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cechoslov. 2012;79:307–316. - PubMed

MeSH terms