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
. 2022 Mar 18;13(3):297-306.
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i3.297.

Plate vs reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: The psychological health influence the choice of device?

Affiliations

Plate vs reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: The psychological health influence the choice of device?

Giuseppe Maccagnano et al. World J Orthop. .

Abstract

Background: Proximal humeral fractures represent the third most common observed osteoporotic fracture; the treatment in three and four-part proximal humeral fractures in patients over 65 years is still controversial. Among the treatments described in literature, open reduction and internal fixation (O.R.I.F) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are gaining an increasing popularity.

Aim: To investigate the correct treatment for three and four-part proximal humeral fractures according to psychological aspects.

Methods: It was conducted a prospective study with a series of 63 patients treated with O.R.I.F. (group A) and with RSA (group B) for three and four-part proximal humeral fractures according to Neer classification system. A conservative treatment group, as control, was finally introduced. One independent observer performed clinical and a psychological evaluation at one (T0), six (T1) and twelve months (T2) postoperatively. The Constant's score and The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH score) were used for clinical evaluation, while General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Caregiver Strain Scale (CSS) were used for psychological evaluation.

Results: At one month follow up in group A the mean values were DASH score 50.8, Constant score 36.1, GAD-7 score 5.4, CSS 5.0. For the group B, the average values at T0 were: DASH score 54.6, Constant score 32.0; GAD-7 score 6.4, CSS 6.2. At six months in group A the average values were DASH score 42.1, Constant score 47.3, GAD-7 score 4.3, CSS 3.9. For the group B, the average values at T1 were: DASH score 39.1, Constant score 43.2, GAD-7 score 5.7, CSS 5.5. At twelve months in the group A, the mean values were DASH score 32.8, Constant score 60.0, GAD-7 score 3.2, CSS 3.1. For the group B shown these mean values: DASH score 33.6, Constant score 52.9, GAD-7 score 4.3, CSS 4.5. We demonstrated a better clinical and psychological outcome at T2 in the group treated with osteosynthesis compared to the group treated with arthroplasty (Constant P = 0.049, GAD-7 P = 0.012 and CSS P = 0.005). A better clinical and psychological outcome emerged in control group at T2 comparing with surgical group (DASH score P = 0.014, Constant score P < 0.001, GAD-7 P = 0.002 and CSS P = 0.001).

Conclusion: Both open osteosynthesis and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are valid treatments for proximal humeral fractures. According to the best osteosynthesis results the authors suggested to perform a psychological analysis for each patient in order to choose the appropriate treatment.

Keywords: Caregiver Strain scale; General Anxiety Disorder-7 scale; Open reduction and fixation; Proximal humerus fractures; Psychological health; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
X-rays images of a patient. A: Post-operative X-rays of a patient treated with open reduction and internal fixation for three-parts proximal humeral fractures; B: Post-operative X-rays of a patient treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty for three-parts proximal humeral fractures.

References

    1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006;37:691–697. - PubMed
    1. Lauritzen JB, Schwarz P, Lund B, McNair P, Transbøl I. Changing incidence and residual lifetime risk of common osteoporosis-related fractures. Osteoporos Int. 1993;3:127–132. - PubMed
    1. Seeley DG, Browner WS, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Scott JC, Cummings SR. Which fractures are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:837–842. - PubMed
    1. Launonen AP, Lepola V, Saranko A, Flinkkilä T, Laitinen M, Mattila VM. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:209. - PubMed
    1. van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C. Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone. 2001;29:517–522. - PubMed