Research progress on valgus impacted proximal humeral fractures.
10.7507/1002-1892.202308062
- Author:
Bo LI
1
;
Shimin CHANG
1
;
Sunjun HU
1
;
Shouchao DU
1
;
Wenfeng XIONG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedics, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200090, P. R. China.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Proximal humerus fracture;
classification;
definition;
treatment;
valgus impacted fracture
- MeSH:
Aged;
Humans;
Bone Plates;
Bone Wires;
Fracture Fixation, Internal/adverse effects*;
Fractures, Comminuted/surgery*;
Humeral Fractures;
Osteonecrosis;
Retrospective Studies;
Shoulder Fractures/surgery*;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
2024;38(1):107-112
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To review the advancement made in the understanding of valgus impacted proximal humeral fracture (PHF).
METHODS:The domestic and foreign literature about the valgus impacted PHF was extensively reviewed and the definition, classification, pathological features, and treatment of valgus impacted PHFs were summarized.
RESULTS:PHF with a neck shaft angle ≥160° is recognized as a valgus impacted PHF characterized by the preservation of the medial epiphyseal region of the humeral head, which contributes to maintenance of the medial periosteum's integrity after fracture and reduces the occurrence of avascular necrosis. Therefore, the valgus impacted PHF has a better prognosis when compared to other complex PHFs. The Neer classification designates it as a three- or four-part fracture, while the AO/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (AO/ASIF) categorizes it as type C (C1.1). In the management of the valgus impacted PHF, the selection between conservative and surgical approaches is contingent upon the patient's age and the extent of fracture displacement. While conservative treatment offers the advantage of being non-invasive, it is accompanied by limitations such as the inability to achieve anatomical reduction and the potential for multiple complications. Surgical treatment includes open reduction combined with steel wire or locking plate and/or non-absorbable suture, transosseous suture technology, and shoulder replacement. Surgeons must adopt personalized treatment strategies for each patient with a valgus impacted PHF. Minimally invasive surgery helps to preserve blood supply to the humeral head, mitigate the likelihood of avascular necrosis, and reduce postoperative complications of bone and soft tissue. For elderly patients with severe comminuted and displaced fractures, osteoporosis, and unsuitable internal fixation, shoulder joint replacement is the best treatment option.
CONCLUSION:Currently, there has been some advancement in the classification, vascular supply, and management of valgus impacted PHF. Nevertheless, further research is imperative to assess the clinical safety, biomechanical stability, and indication of minimally invasive technology.
