JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Short Term Clinical Follow-up Study for Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Humeral Fracture
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
  • Volume 10, Issue 1,  2007, pp.92-98
  • Publisher : Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
  • DOI : 10.5397/CiSE.2007.10.1.092
 Title & Authors
The Short Term Clinical Follow-up Study for Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Humeral Fracture
Sung, Chang-Meen; Cho, Se-Hyun; Jung, Soon-Taek; Hwang, Sun-Chul; Park, Hyung-Bin;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Introduction: The treatment of proximal humeral fracture is traditionally determined by Neer`s classification system. The severely displaced three-part or four-part fracture is an indication for primary hemiarthroplasty. The current authors report the clinical results of 10 patients who received hemiarthroplasty for proximal comminuted fractures. The minimum follow-up period was 12 months. Materials and Methods: The current authors studied 10 patients who, between July 1999 and March 2005, each received hemiarthroplasty for a proximal humeral fracture of one shoulder. According to Neer`s classification system, 5 of the patients had three-part fractures, and 5 of the patients had 4-part fractures. The mean interval between trauma and hemiarthroplasty was 6.1 days. The mean age of the 6 female and 4 male patients was 67.4 years(range: 56 to 76). Shoulder function was evaluated using the Constant score, the Simple Shoulder Test, and the modified UCLA score. Results: The mean Constant score was 51.4(range: 34 to 60). The mean modified SST score was 7.8 out of 12 tasks. Excluding the one patient who had also sustained an axillary artery rupture and a brachial plexus injury after the initial trauma, the mean Constant score for the remaining 9 patients was 53.5(range: 44 to 60), and the mean SST score was 7.2 tasks. The modified UCLA score averages for pain, function, and active forward flexion and strength were, respectively, 8.2(), 6.6(), and 6.9(). The total UCLA score was an average of 21.7(). Patients` the modified UCLA ratings were as follows: Excellent: 3, Good: 6, and Poor: 1. The patient with the poor outcome was the one who had also sustained the neurovascular injury. Patient`s subjective satisfaction rating were as follows: Excellent: 2, Good: 7, and Poor: 1. Conclusion: Based on short term follow-up results, this study indicates that hemiarthroplasty is the treatment of choice for proximal humeral fractures on which it would be difficult to perform open reduction and internal fixation. Hemiarthroplasty is a useful treatment modality to prevent shoulder stiffness and to allow daily living tasks in elderly patients. However, restoration of muscle power and range of joint motion were not recovered satisfactorily.
 Keywords
Proximal humerus;Comminuted Fracture;Hemiarthroplasty;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Boileau P, et al: Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 11: 401-412, 2002. crossref(new window)

2.
Bosch U, Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Tscherne H: Outcome after primary and secondary hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 7: 479-484, 1998. crossref(new window)

3.
Checchia SL, Santos PD, Miyazaki AN: Surgical treatment of acute and chronic posterior fracture-dislocation of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 7: 53-65, 1998. crossref(new window)

4.
Dimakopoulos P, Potamitis N, Lambiris E: Hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of comminuted intraarticular fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 341: 7-11, 1997.

5.
Frankle MA, Greenwald DP, Markee BA, Ondrovic LE, Lee WE: Biomechanical effects of malposition of tuberosity fragments on the humeral prosthetic reconstruction for four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 10: 321-326, 2001. crossref(new window)

6.
Frankle MA, Mighell MA: Techniques and principles of tuberosity fixation for proximal humeral fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 13: 239-247, 2004. crossref(new window)

7.
Frankle MA, Ondrovic LE, Markee BA, Harris ML, Lee WE: Stability of tuberosity reattachment in proximal humeral hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 11: 413-420, 2002. crossref(new window)

8.
Gobel F, Wuthe T, Reichel H: Results of shoulder hemiarthroplasty in patients with acute and old fractures of the proximal humerus. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 137: 25-30, 1999. crossref(new window)

9.
Goldman RT, Koval KJ, Cuomo F, Gallagher MA, Zuckerman JD: Functional outcome after humeral head replacement for acute three-and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 4: 81-86, 1995. crossref(new window)

10.
Hawkins RJ, Switlyk P: Acute prosthetic replacement for severe fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 289: 156-160, 1993.

11.
Hwang SK, Kim YS: Hemiarthroplasty in comminuted fracture and dislocation of the proximal humerus. J Korean Shoulder Elbow society, 1: 205-211, 1998.

12.
Kuhn JE, Blasier RB: Assessment of outcome in shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am, 29: 549-563, 1998. crossref(new window)

13.
Mighell MA, Kolm GP, Collinge CA, Frankle MA: Outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 12: 569-577 2003. crossref(new window)

14.
Moeckel, BH, Dines DM, Warren RF, Altchek DW: Modular hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 74: 884-889, 1992.

15.
Neer CS. 2nd: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 52: 1077-1089, 1970.

16.
Neer CS 2nd: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 52: 1090-1103, 1970.

17.
Neer CS 2nd: Indications for replacement of the proximal humeral articulation. Am J Surg, 89: 901-907, 1955. crossref(new window)

18.
Neer CS 2nd: Prosthetic Replacement of the Humeral Head: Indications and Operative Technique. Surg Clin North Am, 43: 1581-1597, 1963.

19.
Rietveld AB, Daanen HA, Rozing PM, Obermann WR: The lever arm in glenohumeral abduction after hemiarthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 70: 561-565, 1988.

20.
Robinson CM, et al: Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 85: 1215-1223, 2003.

21.
Seo JB, Won CH, Kim YM, Choi ES, Lee HS, Hong YC: Hemiarthroplasty for the comminuted fracture of the proximal humerus. J Korean Shoulder Elbow society, 3: 61-67, 2000.

22.
Zyto K, Wallace WA, Frostick SP, Preston BJ: Outcome after hemiarthroplasty for threeand four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 7: 85-89, 1998. crossref(new window)