Conservative treatment, plate fixation, or prosthesis for proximal humeral fracture. A prospective randomized study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Minna Laitinen⁸  Timo Viljakka³  Petra Elo⁵  Ville M Mattila⁸  Antti Malmivaara²  Pekka Rissanen⁷  Johanna Ojanperä⁴  Niko Strandberg⁶  Tapio Flinkkilä¹  Vesa Lepola⁸  Antti P Launonen⁸ 

[1]Oulu University Hospital, Kajaanintie 50, PL21, Oulu, 90029, Finland

[2]National Institute for Health and Welfare, Mannerheimintie 166, PL 30, 00271, Helsinki, Finland

[3]Department of Hand Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Teiskontie 35, PL2000, Tampere, 33521, Finland

[4]Department of Traumatology and Hand Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, PL1777, Kuopio, 70211, Finland

[5]Tampere University Hospital

[6] Imaging Center, Biokatu 8, PL2000, Tampere, 33521, Finland

[7]Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, PL 52, Turku, 20521, Finland

[8]University of Tampere, Tampere School of Public Health, Tampere, 33014, Finland

[9]Department of Orthopaedics, Tampere University Hospital, Teiskontie 35, PL2000, Tampere 33521, Finland

关键词: RCT;    Epoca;    Philos;    Prosthesis;    Locking plate;    Operative;    Conservative;    Fracture;    Humerus;    Proximal;   

Others  :  1145902
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-167

 received in 2012-02-22, accepted in 2012-08-31,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Proximal humerus fracture is the third most common fracture type after hip and distal radius fracture in elderly patients. A comprehensive study by Palvanen et al. demonstrated an increase in the annual fracture rate of 13.7% per year over the past 33 years. Should this trend continue, the fracture rate would triple over the next three decades. The increasing incidence of low-energy fractures raises questions about the optimal treatment in terms of functional outcome, pain, and rehabilitation time, as well as the economical impact. Despite the high incidence and costs of proximal humerus fractures, there is currently no valid scientific evidence for the best treatment method. Several publications, including a Cochrane review outline the need for high-quality, well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Methods/Design

The study is a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. The hypothesis of the trial is that surgical treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures achieves better functional outcome, pain relief, and patient satisfaction compared to conservative treatment. The trial is designed to compare conservative and surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in patients 60 years and older. The trial includes two strata. Stratum I compares surgical treatment with locking plates to conservative treatment for two-part fractures. Stratum II compares multi-fragmented fractures, including three- and four-part fractures. The aim of Stratum II is to compare conservative treatment, surgical treatment with the Philos locking plate, and hemiarthroplasty with an Epoca prosthesis. The primary outcome measure will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the secondary outcome measures will be the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) value, OSS, Constant-Murley Score, VAS, and 15D.

Recruiting time will be 3 years. The results will be analyzed after the 2-year follow-up period.

Discussion

This publication presents a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. It gives details of patient flow, randomization, aftercare and also ways of analysis of the material and ways to present and publish the results.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01246167

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Launonen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lauritzen JB, Schwarz P, Lund B, McNair P, Transbol I: Changing incidence and residual lifetime risk of common osteoporosis-related fractures. Osteoporos Int 1993, 3(3):127-132.
• [2]Seeley DG, Browner WS, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Scott JC, Cummings SR: Which fractures are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Ann Intern Med 1991, 115(11):837-842.
• [3]Court-Brown CM, Caesar B: Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury 2006, 37(8):691-697.
• [4]Kristiansen B, Barfod G, Bredesen J, Erin-Madsen J, Grum B, Horsnaes MW, Aalberg JR: Epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 1987, 58(1):75-77.
• [5]Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J: Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 442:87-92.
• [6]Neer CS 2nd: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970, 52(6):1077-1089.
• [7]Resch H: [Fractures of the humeral head]. Unfallchirurg 2003, 106(8):602-617.
• [8]Majed A, Macleod I, Bull AM, Zyto K, Resch H, Hertel R, Reilly P, Emery RJ: Proximal humeral fracture classification systems revisited. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011, 20(7):1125-1132.
• [9]Neer CS 2nd: Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970, 52(6):1090-1103.
• [10]Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ: Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008, 17(1):42-54.
• [11]Murray IR, Amin AK, White TO, Robinson CM: Proximal humeral fractures: current concepts in classification, treatment and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011, 93(1):1-11.
• [12]Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P: Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009, 18(6):837-844.
• [13]Sproul RC, Iyengar JJ, Devcic Z, Feeley BT: A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 2011, 42(4):408-413.
• [14]Sudkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kaab M, Luo C, Plecko M, Wendt K, Kostler W, et al: Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(6):1320-1328.
• [15]Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD: Surgical treatment of three and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(7):1689-1697.
• [16]Bastian JD, Hertel R: Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009, 18(2):216-219.
• [17]Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH: Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus: a minimum five-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008, 17(2):202-209.
• [18]Vainiola T, Pettila V, Roine RP, Rasanen P, Rissanen AM, Sintonen H: Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36(12):2090-2093.
• [19]Ohinmaa A, Sintonen H: Inconsistencies and modelling of the Finnish EuroQol (EQ-5D) preference values. In EuroQol Plenary Meeting, 1–2 October 1998 Discussion papers Centre for Health Economics and Health Systems Research, University of Hannover, Germany. Edited by Greiner W, Grafvd Schulenburg J-M, Piercy J. Uni-Verlag Witte,  ; 1999:67-76.
• [20]Sintonen H, Pekurinen M: Uses of 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. In Health systems - the challenge of change. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on System Science in Health Care. Prague June 29-July 3, 1992. Edited by Chytil MK, Duru G, Eimeren W, Flagle CD. Omnipress, Prague; 1992:1071-1074.
• [21]Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ: Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 12:CD000434.
• [22]Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J: Internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011, 20(5):747-755.
• [23]Fjalestad T, Hole MO, Hovden IA, Blucher J, Stromsoe K: Surgical Treatment With an Angular Stable Plate for Complex Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Controlled Tria. J Orthop Trauma 2012, 26(2):98-106.
• [24]Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J: Hemiarthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011, 20(7):1025-1033.
• [25]Hanson B, Neidenbach P, de Boer P, Stengel D: Functional outcomes after nonoperative management of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009, 18(4):612-621.
• [26]Hodgson SA, Mawson SJ, Saxton JM, Stanley D: Rehabilitation of two-part fractures of the neck of the humerus (two-year follow-up). J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007, 16(2):143-145.
• [27]Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM: Two-part fractures and fracture dislocations. Hand Clin 2007, 23(4)):397-414.
• [28]Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C: The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003, 4:11. BioMed Central Full Text