Fibular strut allograft influences reduction and outcomes after locking plate fixation of comminuted proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective study

doi:10.21203/rs.2.11169/v4

Download PDF

Research article

Fibular strut allograft influences reduction and outcomes after locking plate fixation of comminuted proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.11169/v4

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 03 Nov, 2019

Read the published version in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are the third most commonly occurring fractures in elderly patients. Most of these fractures can be treated with conservative methods, but the optimal surgical treatment strategy for unstable fractures in elderly patients remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes between locking compression plate (LCP) fixation and LCP fixation with fibular allograft implantation for the treatment of comminuted PHFs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 60 patients (mean age, 72.75 years) with closed 3- or 4-part fractures, and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Fracture reduction was quantitatively determined by humeral head height (HHH) and neck-shaft angle (NSA). The clinical outcome was evaluated by Constant-Murley score (CMS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Result: The average radiological changes were higher in the LCP group than in the locking plate with fibular allograft group (HHH of 4.16 mm vs 1.18 mm [p<0.001] and NSA of 9.94° versus 3.12° [p<0.001 ]). The final average outcome scores were lower in the LCP group than in the FA group (CMS of 73.00 vs 78.96 [p=0.024] and ASES score of 72.80 vs 78.64 [p=0.022]). The FA group showed better forward elevation (p=0.010) and abduction (p=0.002); however, no significant differences were observed for shoulder external rotation or internal rotation. The number of complications was higher in the LCP group (28.57%) than in the FA group (1.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion: For comminuted PHFs in elderly patients, LCP fixation combined with a fibular allograft is reasonable option to ensure satisfactory radiological and clinical outcomes. Trial registration: ZDYJLY(2018)New-9. Name of registry: IEC for clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, Affiliated to Southeast University. URL of registry: http://www.njzdyy.com. Date of registration: 2018-05-17 Key words: proximal humeral fracture; fibular allograft; locking plate; elderly patients

Orthopedic Surgery

Geriatrics & Gerontology

proximal humeral fracture

fibular allograft

locking plate

elderly patients

Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are common in elderly patients with osteoporosis [1]. The prevalence of PHFs is rapidly increasing because of an increasing elderly population worldwide [2]. Most of these fractures are non-displaced and can be treated with conservative methods. However, the optimal surgical treatment of unstable, displaced two-, three- and four-part fractures in geriatric patients remains controversial [3].

Locking plate fixation is currently the most widely used method for the management of unstable PHFs [4]. However, achieving stable fixation and maintaining intraoperative reduction in elderly patients with low bone mineral density is still difficult [5]. Complications including screw perforation and varus malalignment are often reported [6,7]. Establishment of the medial column support is well known to achieve successful clinical outcome and reduce the complication rate [8,9]. Various techniques have been advocated to reduce and enhance the medical column, such as cement augmentation, inferomedial screws, and allograft [10]. Many biomechanical studies have reported that the combined use of a locking compression plate (LCP) and fibular allograft could increase the initial stiffness and sustain a higher ultimate failure load [11,12]; however, only a few comparative clinical studies have been performed to date.

Thus, this study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical outcome between LCP (LCP group) and LCP with fibular allograft (FA group) in the treatment of comminuted PHFs. We hypothesized that elderly patients treated with the LCP and fibular strut allograft would have better outcomes and lower complication rate than those treated with the LCP alone.

This study was approved by institutional review boards, and written consent was obtained from all patients. This retrospective study included 60 geriatric patients who underwent an open reduction and internal fixation for comminuted PHFs between January 2014 and May 2017. The inclusion criteria were aged 60 years or older, a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, and a diagnosis of displaced three- and four-part PHFs. Patients with pathological fractures, open fractures, fractures that involved articular split of the humeral head, and associated nerve injuries were excluded.

Postoperative radiographs were obtained on the second day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after the surgery. Radiological evaluation was performed by measuring the humeral head height [13] (HHH) and neck shaft angle (NSA) on true anteroposterior (AP) radiographs (Figure 1). The NSA was measured on AP radiographs with the shoulder in neutral rotation [14]. A line was drawn from the superior to the inferior border of the articular surface. Then, a perpendicular line was drawn through the center of the humeral head. The angle between the perpendicular line and the line bisecting the humeral shaft was defined as the NSA (Figure 2). A difference in the HHH >3 mm or the NSA >5° on the AP radiograph that was taken 2 days after the operation and that obtained at the 2 years follow-up was defined as loss of fixation [15].

Clinical outcomes were evaluated by the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) [16] score and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) [17]. Shoulder range of motion including forward elevation, external rotation, abduction, and internal rotation was digitally recorded at the first year of follow-up and subsequent yearly evaluation. Complications such as infection, screw perforation, and humeral head necrosis were recorded during follow-up.

Surgical technique

All patients were positioned in the beach chair position with the injured arms hanging over the edge of the radiolucent operating table. The deltopectoral approach was performed to gain access to the proximal humerus. The humeral head and the fragments were retracted and reduced by placing no. 2 nonabsorbable sutures (Ethicon, Somerville, USA) through the rotator cuff. In the LCP group, anatomical reduction of the fragments was maintained by temporary Kirschner wires and checked by fluoroscopy. Thereafter, a proximal humeral LCP (Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland) was placed on the lateral cortex and fixed with cortical and locking screws. The plate was placed 5 mm inferior to the upper end of the greater tuberosity and 1 cm posterior to the bicipital groove [18].

In the FA group, the fibular allograft was used to indirectly reduce the fracture. A 1.5-mm guidewire was placed 1 cm posterior to the intertubercular groove and 1 cm medial to the transition between the head and the greater tuberosity. A fibular strut was inserted into the cavity, through the fracture site, and through the guidewire. By this procedure, the proximal fibular allograft was located at the center of the head, and the distal end was positioned in the humeral shaft. The proper height and position of he humeral head could be achieved by pushing the allograft upward instead of medial (Figure 3). Further, greater tuberosity fragments were reduced and temporarily fixed. A LCP was used to complete the fixation after the fracture reduction was confirmed under C-arm. Locking screws were used to pass through the allograft to lock its position (Figure 4). Two infer-medial calcar screws were also inserted to provide additional support.

A sling was provided to immobilize the arm during the first 4 weeks after surgery in both groups. Continuous pendulum and passive range-of-motion exercises were started 2 days postoperatively. Active assisted range-of-motion exercises were followed at 4 weeks. The patients could start to do daily activities according to the tolerance of the patients and the fracture union status.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous data and scores for the LCP and FA groups were evaluated with an independent t test. Differences in proportions were compared with a chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test. The threshold for significance was set at p < 0.05.

A total of 60 patients (26 men and 34 women) were included in this study. The LCP group comprised 35 patients, of which 25 patients had three-part fractures and 10 had four-part fractures. The FA group consisted of 25 patients, of which 17 patients had three-part fractures and 8 had four-part fractures. In the LCP group, 18 patients experienced medial comminution, and the mean follow-up period was 32.23 (range, 25-40) months. In the FA group, 13 patients experienced medial comminution, and the mean follow-up period was 31.56 (range, 24-40) months (Table 1).

In the LCP group, the average change in HHH was 4.16 mm (range, 0-13 mm), a change in HHH >3 mm appeared in 18 patients. The average change in NSA was 9.94° (range, 0-30°), a change in NSA >5° appeared in 20 patients. In the FA group, the average change in HHH was 1.18 mm (range, 0-13 mm), a change in HHH >3 mm appeared in 3 patients. The average change in NSA was 3.12° (range, 0-8°), a change in NSA >5° appeared in 4 patients.

The CMS, ASES scores, and shoulder range of motion for all patients are presented in Table 2. Compared with the LCP group, the FA group had significantly better mean CMS (78.96 versus 73.00; p = 0.024) and ASES scores (78.64 versus 72.80; p = 0.022). At 2 years, the active forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation of the shoulder were 128.49 ± 22.81°, 122.37 ± 22.31°, 55.09 ± 8.63°, and L1, respectively, in the LCP group compared with 144.04 ± 21.37°, 140.64 ± 20.34°, 58.96 ± 8.49°, and T12 in the FA group (Figure 6). Signiﬁcant difference in active forward elevation (p = 0.010) and abduction (p = 0.002) of the shoulder was found between the two groups. No significant difference in the mean external rotation values (p = 0.090) and internal rotation values (p = 0.438) was noted between the two groups. There were 12 complications in 10 of 35 patients (28.57%) in the LCP group, including varus malunion in 5, screw penetration in 5, and avascular necrosis in 2. In the FA group, one patient presented screw penetration, and two patients developed avascular necrosis of the humeral head.

This study compared the LCP group and the FA group involving three- and four-part PHFs in patients aged 60 years or older and evaluated the influence of fibular allograft on the radiological and clinical outcomes. PHFs treated by LCP and fibular allograft showed significantly better clinical outcomes, and a lower complication rate. The FA group also showed superior radiological results regardless of the fracture type.

The treatment of unstable and displaced PHFs in elderly patients remains a challenge [19]. Anatomical reduction is difficult to maintain because of the poor quality of the humeral head, and many surgeons believe that LCP fixation is a promising treatment for this problem [20]. Compared to the standard nonlocking plate, the screw fixation angle can be oriented in different directions when an LCP is used, and the locking screw provides stable fixation maintenance [21]. However, many studies have reported variable outcomes, with high rates of complications, including screw penetration, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head, especially in older patients with osteoporosis or medial column comminution [22,23]. Ockert et al. [24] reported 10-year outcomes after operative treatment with LCP for unstable and displaced PHFs, and the majority of the patients obtained good or excellent outcomes. However, poor outcomes and complications were found in older and female patients. In recent years, many efforts have made to overcome these problems. Clinical and biomechanical studies have paid increased attention to allograft augmentation to increase the stability of locking plate fixation in PHFs. Gardner et al. [25] were the first to introduce this technique using fibular strut allograft to indirectly reduce the fracture and maintain the fixation; in their study, all of the seven fractures achieved complete union without loss of fixation.

Mathison et al. [12] first made a biomechanical comparison between locking plate alone and locking plate with fibular allograft. They created a 10-mm wedge-shaped osteotomy at the lever of the surgical neck to simulate the comminution of the medial column. Load-displacement curve was used to test failure load and stiffness of the constructs. Their study demonstrated that the bone peg increased the failure load and the initial stiffness of the constructs. Relative to locking plate fixation alone, failure load was increased by 1.72 times and the initial stiffness was increased by 3.84 times. Chow et al. [11] performed a similar study to evaluate the effect of a fibular allograft. No augmented construct collapsed before 25,000 cycles, while most of the specimens in the non-augmented locking compression group collapsed at mean 6,604 cycles. Neviaser et al. [26] retrospectively reviewed 38 patients treated by locking plate with endosteal strut augment, and they reported high clinical outcome scores and lower complication rate. Recently, Panchal et al. [27] assessed the effect of intramedullary fibular allograft on the clinical and radiological outcomes in unstable PHFs with medial column disruption. According to the clinical rating scale, 26 patients had excellent or good outcomes, six patients showed fair outcomes, and only four patients experienced poor outcomes. With regard to the restoration of the humeral NSA, the result was good in 31, fair in three, and poor in two cases. When calculating the HHH, the average loss of reduction was measured as 1.6 mm. Only two cases experienced varus collapse of the humeral head, and osteonecrosis was noted in two patients. Cha et al. [15] compared the radiological outcomes of using only LCP and using LCP with fibular allograft in the treatment of comminuted PHFs. The change in the NSA and HHH in the LCP group was markedly higher.

In our opinion, the fibular allograft was a reasonable option to maintain the anatomical reduction in the treatment of comminuted PHFs in the elderly patients. The fibular allograft could be used as tool to indirectly reduce the fracture. Gardner et al. [25] first introduced the use of screw to push the fibular allograft medially so that the graft could indirectly reduce the fractured medial cortex. Subsequently, many authors preferred to push the graft upward instead of medial because it could support the humeral head in a proper height [15, 28]. However, in some cases, the intramedullary cavity in elderly patients accompanied osteoporosis was relatively large, the graft could not be easily manipulated. So we placed a guide pin at the apex of the humeral head. Then, the fibular allograft was pushed upward in the intramedullary cavity through the guide pin as in retrograded nailing. Especially in cases with medial cortex disruption, using fibular allograft as a pillar to support the humeral head from intramedullary cavity was more helpful in maintaining reduction. The added stability provided by the fibular allograft allowed for an early rehabilitation program and reduced the complication rate. In our study, the FA group showed significant lower rates of varus malunion and screw penetration. The fibular allograft also had disadvantages, such as risk of infection, disease transmission, and high cost. The fibular allograft contains cortical bone, so it might be fractured during insertion of the screws.

This study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study, and the number of patients was relatively small. Further study with a greater number of patients is needed. Second, the follow-up duration was rather short, as the difference in NSA and HHH might change with longer monitoring. Third, the Neer classification is the most widely used grading system for PHFs, but some studies have shown that the Neer classification only have fair to good reliability.

Elderly patients treated with an LCP and fibular allograft achieved better radiological outcomes, clinical outcomes, and a lower rate of complications compared with those who treatment with an LCP alone for the treatment of a three- or four-part PHFs. Using the fibular allograft is a reasonable option to help the reduction, provide additional support to the humeral head, improve outcomes, and minimize complications.

AP: anteroposterior

ASES: American Shoulder and Elbow Society

CMS: Constant-Murley score

FA group: locking plate with fibular allograft

HHH: humeral head height

LCP: locking compression plate

NHA: neck-shaft angle

PHF: proximal humeral fractures

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Institutional Review Board of Zhongda Hospital affiliated to Southeast University reviewed and approved this study. Each author certifies that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles. Written consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors have received written consent from participants to publish individual patient data.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

BBM and WBF participated in the recruitment, data collection, and analysis. XLC wrote the manuscript. HC and HL performed the surgery as main operators. XLC contributed to the study design and conception. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

1.Baron JA, Karagas M, Barrett J, Kniffin W, Malenka D, Mayor M, Keller RB. Basic epidemiology of fractures of the upper and lower limb among Americans over 65 years of age. Epidemiology. 1996; 7:612-618.

2.Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J.Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2006; 442:87-92.

3.Neer CS 2nd .Displaced proximal humeral fractures. Part I. Classification and evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 442:77-82.

4.Walsh S, Reindl R, Harvey E, Berry G, Beckman L, Steffen T. Biomechanical comparison of a unique locking plate versus a standard plate for internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures

in a cadaveric model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006; 21(10):1027-1031.

5.Namdari S , Voleti P B , Mehta S. Evaluation of the osteoporotic proximal humeral fracture and strategies for structural augmentation during surgical treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21(12):1787-1795.

6.Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Abrams GD, Bruce B, McCormick F,Nicholson GP, Romeo AA. Surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures-a systematic review of 92 studies including 4500 patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29:54-9.

7.Sproul RC, Iyengar JJ, Devcic Z, Feeley BT. A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2011; 42:408–13.

8. Krappinger D, Bizzotto N, Riedmann S, Kammerlander C, Hengg C, Kralinger FS (2011) Predicting failure after surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 42:1283-8

9. Lee CW, Shin SJ. Prognostic factors for unstable proximal humeral fractures treated with locking-plate fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2009; 18:83-8.

10. Kim D S, Lee D H, Chun Y M, Shin SJ. Which additional augmented fixation procedure decreases surgical failure after proximal humeral fracture with medial comminution: fibular allograft or inferomedial screws?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(10):S1058274618302295.

11.Chow RM, Begum F, Beaupre LA, Carey JP, Adeeb S, Bouliane MJ. Proximal humeral fracture fixation: locking plate construct±intramedullary fibular allograft. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 21(7):894–901.

12.Mathison C, Chaudhary R, Beaupre L, Reynolds M, Adeeb S, Bouliane M. Biomechanical analysis of proximal humeral fixation using locking plate fixation with an intramedullary fibular allograft. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2010; 25:642–6.

13. Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21(3), 185-191.

14. Agudelo J, Schürmann, Matthias, Stahel P, Helwig P, Morgan SJ, Zechel, W, Bahrs C, Parekh A, Ziran B, Williams A, Smith W. Analysis of efficacy and failure in proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plates.J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21(10), 676-681.

15. Cha H, Park KB, Oh S, Jeong J. Treatment of comminuted proximal humeral fractures using locking plate with strut allograft. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(5), 781-785.

16. Cuff DJ, Pupello D. Hemiarthroplasty vs. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Comminuted Proximal Humeral Fractures in Elderly Patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(22):2050-2055.

17. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: Modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(2):0-361.

18. Schnetzke, M. Bockmeyer J, Porschke F, Studier-Fischer S, Grützner, Paul-Alfred, Guehring T. Quality of Reduction Influences Outcome After Locked-Plate Fixation of Proximal Humeral Type-C Fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98(21):1777-1785.

19. Schliemann B, Siemoneit J, Theisen C, Kösters C, Weimann A, Raschke MJ. Complex fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly—outcome and complications after locking plate fixation. Musculoskelet Surg. 2012; 96 (Suppl 1):S3-11.

20.Ricchetti ET, Warrender WJ, Abboud JA. Use of locking plates in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19:66-75.

21.Gardner MJ, Evans JM, Dunbar RP. Failure of fracture plate fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17:647-57.

22.Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21:185-91.

23. Jiang R, Luo CF, Zeng BF, Mei GH. Minimally invasive plating for complex humeral shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007; 127:531-5.

24.Ockert B, Siebenbürger Georg, Kettler M, Braunstein V, Mutschler W. Long-term functional outcomes (median 10 years) after locked plating for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(8):1223-1231.

25.Gardner MJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Indirect medial reduction and strut support of proximal humerus fractures using an endosteal implant. J Orthop Trauma. 2008; 22:195-200.

26.Bae JH, Oh JK, Chon CS, Oh CW, Hwang JH, Yoon YC. The biomechanical performance of locking plate fixation with intramedullary fibular strut graft augmentation in the treatment of unstable fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2011; 98(7):937–941.

27.Panchal K, Jeong JJ, Park SE, Kim WY. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unstable proximal humeral fractures treated with a locking plate and fibular strut allograft. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(3):569-577.

28.Lee SH, Han SS, Yoo BM, Kim JW. Outcomes of locking plate fixation with fibular allograft augmentation for proximal humeral fractures in osteoporotic patient. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B(3):260-265.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics data for patients included in this study.

Characteristic	LCP Group (n=35)	FA Group (n=25)	P-value
Average age (year)	72.46	73.16	0.566
Sex distribution (male : female)	11:24	7:18	0.775
Dominant arm involvement	17:18	13:12	0.793
The mean time from injury to surgery (day)	4.69	4.48	0.237
Te mechanism of injury (F: TA)	27:8	20:5	0.791
Classifcation of Neer (3 part : 4 part)	25:10	17:8	0.775
Medial comminution	18:17	13:12	0.965
The mean follow-up period (months)	32.23	31.56	0.898
LCP, locking compression plate; FA, fibular allograft.

Table 2: Radiographic Evaluation, Outcome Scores and Range-of-Motion Data for the Study Population.

Variable	LCP Group (n=35)	FA Group (n=25)	P-value
HHH (mm)*	4.16±4.2	1.18±1.08	﹤0.001
NSA *	9.94±9.92°	3.12±3.13°	﹤0.001
CMS*	73.00±9.94	78.96±9.71	0.024
ASES*	72.80±9.73	78.64±9.18	0.022
Forward elevation*	128.49±22.81°	144.04±21.37°	0.010
Abduction*	122.37±22.31°	140.64±20.34°	0.002
Internal rotation†	L1(buttock-T5)	T12 level (L5-T5)	0.438
External rotation*	55.09±8.63°	58.96±8.49°	0.090
LCP, locking compression plate; FA, fibular allograft; HHH, humeral head height; NSA, neck shaft angle; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score. CMS Constant-Murley score. *The values are given as the mean and standard deviation. †The values are given as the mean with the range in parentheses.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 03 Nov, 2019

Read the published version in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders →

Editorial decision: Accept
22 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned by journal
21 Oct, 2019
Submission checks completed at journal
20 Oct, 2019
Editor invited by journal
20 Oct, 2019

You are reading this latest preprint version

Fibular strut allograft influences reduction and outcomes after locking plate fixation of comminuted proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 4

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

List of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 4