Arthroplasty versus joint preservation for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.26.026

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Currently, the treatment of proximal humeral fractures mainly contains joint preservation (conservative treatment, open reduction and internal fixation) and arthroplasty, but how to choose the treatment is still controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of joint preservation versus arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced 3-or 4-part humeral fractures in randomized controlled trials using meta-analysis.
METHODS: Medline (January 1966 to December 2013), PubMed (January 1980 to December 2013), Embase (January 1990 to December 2013), Science (January 1990 to December 2013), Springer (January 1990 to December 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 2013), and Wanfang database (1982 to 2013) were searched for randomized controlled trials addressing joint preservation and arthroplasty for 3-or 4-part proximal humeral fractures. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The related data were extracted and loaded onto Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software for meta-analysis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Seven articles with 320 patients (165 patients undergoing joint preservation and
155 patients receiving arthroplasty) were accepted in this mete-analysis and all of them were high-quality English researches by modified Jadad Scale. Meta-analysis results displayed that the random-effects mean Constant score across all types was 55.9 (95%CI: 50.7-61.1; P < 0.001). Constant score was higher in the joint preservation group than in the arthroplasty group (P < 0.01). The study displayed significant heterogeneity (I2=88%, Q statistic=107.6, Q=13; P < 0.001). In the meta-analysis, Constant scores were decreased with increasing rate of male to female and rate of tuberosity resorption. These results suggested that 3-or 4-part proximal humeral fractures demonstrate improved Constant scores when treated with joint-preserving options compared with arthroplasty. Moreover, age, fracture pattern, gender ratio and complication rate are significant predictors of the Constant score. Given the observed heterogeneity and variance in treatment techniques in the included studies, more randomized controlled trial studies are needed to definitively recommend joint-preserving techniques versus arthroplasty for treatment of 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: humeral fractures, arthroplasty, replacement, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial

CLC Number:

R318

Zhang Hai-yang, Zhao Yan, Xie Chong, Cheng Yong-tao, Wang Cong-cong. Arthroplasty versus joint preservation for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(26): 4241-4247.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1]Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures:A review. Injury. 2006;37:691-697.
[2]Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91:1320-1328.
[3]Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, et al. Treat-ment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:837-844.
[4]Barrett JA, Baron JA, Karagas MR, et al. Fracture risk in the U.S. Medicare population. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:243- 249.
[5]Calvo E, Morcillo D, Foruria AM, et al. Nondisplaced proximal humeral fractures: high incidence among outpatient-treated osteoporotic fractures and severe impact on upper extremity function and patient subjective health perception. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):795-801.
[6]Guy P, Slobogean GP, McCormack RG, et al. Treatment preferences for displaced three-and four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Rauma. 2010;24(4):250.
[7]Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(4): 365-371.
[8]Gaebler C, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Minimally displaced proximal humeral fractures: epidemiology and outcome in 507 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:580- 585.
[9]Handoll HH,Gibson JN,Madhok R. Interventions for treating proximal humeral Fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 4 :CD000434.
[10]Misra A,Kapur R,Maffulli N. Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults-a systematic review of management. Injury. 2001; 32(5):363-372.
[11]Kontakis G,Koutras C,Tosounidis T,et al. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with heimiarthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1407-1413.
[12]Neer CSII. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: I. Classification and evalua-tion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970; 52:1077-1089.
[13]Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T, et al. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(11): 1407-1413.
[14]Fjalestad T, Strømsøe K,Blücher J. Fractures in the proximal humerus:functional outcome and evaluation of 70 patients treated in hospital. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;(5): 310-316.
[15]Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, et al. Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4): 612-621.
[16]Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; 214:160-164.
[17]Majed A, Macleod I, Bull AM, et al. Proximal humeral fracture classification systems revisited. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20(7):1125-1132.
[18]Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials.1996;17(1):1-12.
[19]Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997,315(7109): 629-634.
[20]Zyto K, Ahrengart L, Sperber A, et al. Treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(3):412-417.
[21]Agorastides I, Sinopidis C, EI Meligy M, et al. Early versus late mobilization after hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl.):S33–38.
[22]Fialka C, Stampfl P, Arbes S, et al. Primary hemiarthroplasty in four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: randomized trial of two different implant systems. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(2):210–215.
[23]Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, et al. Internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):747-755.
[24]Olerud P,Ahrengart L,Ponzer S,et al. Hemiarthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment of displaced4－part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:1025-1033.
[25]Boons HW, Goosen JH, van Grinsven S, et al. Hemiarthroplasty for humeral four-part fractures for patients 65 years and older: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(12):3483-3491.
[26]Cai M, Tao K, Yang C, et al.Internal fixation versus shoulder hemiarthroplasty for displaced 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Trauma. 2012; 35(9):e1340- 1346.
[27]Baker P, Nanda R, Goodchild L, et al. A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1):37-41.
[28]Thalhammer G, Platzer P, Oberleitner G, et al. Angular stable fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Trauma. 2009;66: 204-210.
[29]Misra A, Kapur R, Maffulli N. Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults-a systematic review of management. Injury. 2001;32(5):363-372.
[30]Levy J, Frankle M, Mighell M, et al. The use of the reverse shoulder pros-thesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(2):292-300.
[31]冯彦华,王诗波.肱骨近端3,4部分骨折手术与非手术治疗疗效比较的Meta分析[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2012,20(14):1260-1264.
[32]Li Y, Zhao L, Zhu L, et al. 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. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e75464.
[33]Kelsey JL, Browner WS, Seeley DG, et al. Risk factors for fractures of the distal forearm and proximal humerus, the study of osteoporotic fractures research group. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:477-489.
[34]Bell JE, Leung BC, Spratt KF, et al.Trends and variation in incidence, surgical treatment, and repeat surgery of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(2):121-131.
[35]Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001; 72(4):365-371.
[36]Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T, et al. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(11): 1407-1413.
[37]Baker P, Nanda R, Goodchild L, et al. A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1):37-41.
[38]Neer CS 2nd. Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):389-400.