Ischaemia, healing and outcomes in proximal humeral fractures

Abstract

Interfragmental ischaemia is a prerequisite for the initiation of the inflammatory and immunological response to fracturing of bone. Intrafragmental ischaemia is inevitable: the extent of the initial ischaemic insult does not, however, directly relate to the outcome for healing of the fracture zones and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. The survival of distal regions of fragments with critical perfusion may be the result of a type of inosculation (blood vessel contact), which establishes reperfusion before either revascularization or neo-angiogenesis has occurred. Periosteum has a poorly defined role in fracture healing in the proximal humerus. The metaphyseal periosteal perfusion may have a profound effect, as yet undefined, on the healing of most metaphyseal fractures of the proximal humerus, and may be disturbed further by inadvertent surgical manipulation. The metaphysis can be considered as a ‘torus’ or ring of bone, its surface covered by periosteum antero- and posterolaterally, through which the tuberosity segments gain perfusion and capsular reflections antero- and posteromedially, through which the humeral head (articular) fragment gains perfusion. The torus is broken in relatively simple primary patterns: a fracture line at the upper surface of the torus is an anatomical ‘neck’ fracture; a fracture line at the lower surface of the torus is the surgical ‘neck’ fracture. Secondary fragmentation (through compression and/or distraction) of the torus itself creates complexity for analysis (classification), alters the capacity and outcome for healing (by variable interruption of the fragmental blood supply) and influences interfragmental stability. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180005