Affiliation:
1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
2. San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, 10043 Orbassano, Italy
3. Orthopaedic and Trauma Unit, ASST-Sette Laghi, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical, functional, and radiographic results of patients affected by three- or four-part proximal humeral fractures treated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, to investigate whether a prosthetic stem nonspecifically designed for fractures (i.e., the Bigliani-Flatow stem) promotes tuberosities’ healing, and to evaluate the impact of tuberosity fixation and healing on the outcomes. Methods: Patients’ data such as gender, age, side and dominancy, comorbidities, complications during or after surgery, and time lapse between trauma and surgery were prospectively collected. The type of fixation of the stem, the thickness and type of liner, and whether the tuberosities were fixed or not were also recorded. The Constant score weighted on the contralateral limb, QuickDASH, Oxford Shoulder Score, and Subjective Shoulder Value were collected. Tuberosities’ healing was assessed with X-rays (anteroposterior, Grashey, and axillary views). Results: Overall, 34 patients were included, with an average follow-up of 42 months. Tuberosities were reinserted in 24 cases and their healing rate was 83%. The mean values were the following: a Constant score of 64, Oxford Shoulder Score of 39, Subjective Shoulder Value of 71, and QuickDASH score of 27. There were no significant differences in the scores or range of motion between patients with tuberosities healed, reabsorbed, or not reattached. There was a better external rotation in the group with healed tuberosities and a longer duration of surgery to reattach tuberosities. Conclusions: The treatment of proximal humerus fractures with the Bigliani-Flatow stem is associated with good clinical and functional results. The healing rate of the tuberosities was high and comparable, if not even better, than the mean rates reported for the stems dedicated to fractures of the proximal humerus and was, therefore, also appropriate for this indication.
Reference62 articles.
1. Fragility fractures in Europe: Burden, management and opportunities;Karlsson;Arch. Osteoporos.,2020
2. Sistema Nazionale per le Linee Guida dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità (2024, April 17). Diagnosi, stratificazione del rischio e continuità assistenziale delle Fratture da Fragilità. Available online: https://siot.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LG-392_Fratture-da-Fragilita.pdf.
3. Reprint of: The impact of fragility fracture and approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment worldwide;Curtis;Int. J. Orthop. Trauma Nurs.,2017
4. The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)—Quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture;Lekander;Osteoporos. Int.,2013
5. Guidelines for the management of osteoporosis and fragility fractures;Nuti;Intern. Emerg. Med.,2019