slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Proximal Humerus

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Proximal Humerus - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 236 Views
  • Uploaded on

Proximal Humerus. Fractures. Principles of Diagnosis, Decision Making and Treatment. Christopher G. Finkemeier, MD, MBA Revised: May 2011. Acknowledgement: AO faculty lecture archive. Objectives. 1. Learn the principles of diagnosis. 2. Learn the principles of decision making.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Proximal Humerus' - gema


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Proximal Humerus

Fractures

Principles of Diagnosis,

Decision Making and Treatment

Christopher G. Finkemeier, MD, MBA

Revised: May 2011

Acknowledgement: AO faculty lecture archive

objectives
Objectives

1. Learn the principles of diagnosis

2. Learn the principles of decision making

3. Learn the various treatment options

epidemiology
Epidemiology

All upper extremity fractures

1. forearm fxs

2. proximal humerus fxs

All fractures in patients > 65 yrs

1. hip fxs

2. “colles” fxs

3. proximal humerus fxs

4 anatomic parts

HUMERAL HEAD:

precarious blood supply

AVN

GREATER TUBEROSITY:

supra/infraspinatus

insertion

SURGICAL NECK/SHAFT:

deltoid/pectoralis major

largely dictates fx behavior

compression: stable

shear: unstable

LESSER TUBEROSITY:

subscapularis insertion

4 Anatomic Parts

Deforming forces determine fx displacement

vascular supply
Vascular Supply
  • Lateral ascending branch of anterior humeral circumflexartery
  • Damage may lead to AVN
slide6

Gerber et al.,

JBJS, 1990

Humeral Head Vascularity

Non shaded area is supplied

by the lateral ascending branch

of the anterior humeral circumflex

artery.

slide7

Recent anatomic and clinical findings confirm

that perfusion from the posterior circumflex vessels

alone may be adequate for head survival.

Brooks, JBJS 1993; Coudane, JSES, 2000; Duparc, Surg RadAnat, 2001

Humeral Head Vascularity

In the fractured humerus, the arcuate artery is

generally interupted.

slide8

Radiography

True AP

Transcapular “Y”

axillary view

Lesser Tuberosity

Axillary View

ct scan
CT Scan
  • Articular surface
    • Head splitting injury
  • Tuberosity displacement, especially lesser tuberosity
treatment

?

Operative

Nonoperative

Fx pattern

Head viability

Bone quality

Implant limitations

Patient age & comorbidities

Treatment
  • 80% of PHF are NONDISPLACED and can be successfully treated NONOPERATIVELY

20% Displaced

neer classification
Neer Classification

> 1 cm

45º

Codman’s

4 parts

ao classification
AO Classification

A-type: 2-part

B-type: 3-part

C-type: 4-part +

anatomic neck

slide14

97%

PPV

  • Loss of integrity of medial hinge

Predictors of ischemia:

  • Metaphyseal head extension (calcar) < 8 mm.
  • Fracture Pattern (anatomic neck)

Hertel et al, J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004;13:427

slide15

BEWARE of lateral displacement of head

Metaphyseal

head extension < 8mm

Blood Supply Potentially Torn if medial hinged displaced

 This head is likely NOT viable.

slide16

Medial Hinge not

displaced

Metaphyseal head

Extension > 8mm

This head is

likely viable

bone quality
Bone Quality

Tingert et al, JBJS(B), 2003

Mean cortical thickness

A

B

2 cm

A + B + C + D

C

D

4

“A mean cortical thickness < 4 mm is highly indicative of low BMD”

Predictable loss of fixation ?

slide18

Locking plates are less prone

to failure due to the fixed-

angled screws.

Implant limitations

Recognizing what implants are

appropriate for certain fracture

types is a key decision making factor.

Conventional implants

Poorly control varus

collapse, screw loosening

and screw back out.

slide19

?

Operative

Nonoperative

Fx pattern

Head viability

Bone quality

Implant limitations

Patient age & comorbidities

Putting it all together

slide20

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Nonoperative Tx

sling + ROM

Nonop tx = surgery

Court-Brown et al., JBJS(B), 2001

slide21

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Elderly

Non-displaced

or mod displaced

Nonoperative Tx

sling + ROM

Nonop tx = surgery

Court-Brown et al., JBJS(B), 2001

treatment non operative
Treatment: Non-operative
  • Koval et al., JBJS, 1997
    • 77% good or excellent; 13% fair, 10% poor results
    • Functional recovery averaged 94%
    • Sling with ROM exercises by 2 weeks
treatment non operative1
Treatment: Non-operative
  • Court-Brown et al., JBJS(B), 2001
    • Mean age 72 yrs
    • Outcome determined by age and degree oftranslation
    • Surgery did not improve outcomes regardlessof translation
slide24

Operative Tx

heavy suture

through rotator

cuff insertion

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

“significant displacement”

>5mm GT >66% SN

Poor bone quality

or

Locking plate

slide25

Closed reduction

percutaneous pins

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Satisfactory bone quality

Operative Tx

slide26

ORIF

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Satisfactory bone quality

Operative Tx

slide27

Nonoperative Tx

B1.1

Poor bone quality

Court-Brown, JBJS(B), 2002

Zyto et al, JBJS(B), 1997

Non-op = surgery

maybe better

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

slide28

High failure rates with

standard plates

Especially in patients

with poor bone

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

ORIF

Locking plates have

dramatically improved

fixation

slide30

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Hemiarthroplasty

Highly displaced fxs

“3 or 4-part”

Poor bone quality

Not reconstructable

slide32

Hemiarthroplasy

  • Pain relief generally good
  • Good function depends on anatomic

tuberosity placement

  • Despite all the advances, shoulder

flexion above 90º is difficult to acheive

slide33

Unless able to fix

anatomically, better to

replace (hemi)

Gerber et al.

JSES, 1998

Hemi

Poor bone

Fix

Good bone

Jan 07

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons

Hospital for Special Surgery

protocol

Anatomic neck fxs

have high rate of

AVN (+/- 50%).

slide34

Summary of

Decision Making Process

slide35

“Young” Patients

<30yrs? <40yrs? <50 yrs?

“good bone quality”

Preservation of function is primary objective

“Full court press”

Anatomic reduction/soft tissue sparing

Stable fixation

Hemiarthroplasty for non-reconstructable fxs only

slide36

Elderly Patients

“poor bone quality”

Pain relief primary objective

Non op RX if fracture stable and early motion possible

  • If unstable:
    • ORIF if head viable and fracture reducible
    • Hemiarthroplasty if head not viable or fracture not repairable

Locking plate

slide37

Caveat

“A proximal humeral fracture that is at risk

for AVN has to be reduced anatomically

if joint preserving treatment is selected. If

anatomic reduction cannot be obtained,

other treatment options such as arthroplasty

should be considered.”

Gerber et al.

The clinical relevance of posttraumatic avascular

Necrosis of the humeral head. JSES, 1998

slide38

GT fx +

Surgical neck fx

with extension

Medial

hinge intact

Metaphyseal spike

> 8mm

93 y/o male

RHD

Healthy

Fell

slide41

6 weeks

+ callus

FE 90

slide42

References

Neer, CS. Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures.

JBJS 52-A: 1077-1089, 1970.

Neer, CS. Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures, Part II. JBJS 52-A:

1090-1103, 1970.

Gerber, C. et al. The Arterial Vascularization of the Humeral Head.

JBJS 72-A: 1486-1494, 1990.

Brooks, CH et al. Vascularity of the Humeral Head After Proximal Humeral

Fractures: An Anatomical Study. JBJS 75-B: 132-136, 1993.

Hertel, R et al. Predictors of Humeral Head Ischemia After Intracapsular

Fracture of the Proximal Humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg: 427-433, 2004

slide43

References

Nho, SJ. et al. Innovations in the Management of Displaced Proximal Humerus

Fractures . J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg. 15: 12 – 26, 2007.

Koval, KJ. et al. Functional Outcome after Minimally Displaced Fractures

of the Proximal Part of the HumerusJBJS 79-A: 79: 203 – 7, 1997.

thank you
Thank you!

If you would like to volunteer as an author for the Resident Slide Project or recommend updates to any of the following slides, please send an e-mail to [email protected]

E-mail OTA

about

Questions/Comments

Return to

Upper Extremity

Index

ad