A comparative study of three internal fixation techniques for split fractures of humeral greater tuberosity
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20230324-00146
- VernacularTitle:三种内固定方式治疗肱骨大结节劈裂骨折的疗效比较
- Author:
Gang LIU
1
;
Hong LUO
;
Baolu ZHANG
;
Weili TANG
;
Yang LIU
;
Bo QIN
;
Kai DENG
;
Shengqiang ZENG
;
Dingsu BAO
;
Shijie FU
Author Information
1. 西南医科大学附属中医医院骨关节外科，四川泸州 646000
- Keywords:
Shoulder joint;
Arthroscopy;
Fracture fixation, internal;
Split fracture of humeral greater tuberosity;
Hollow screws;
Proximal humerus internal locking sy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2023;25(5):407-414
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical effectiveness between arthroscopic hollow screws combined with a suture anchor, hollow screws and proximal humerus internal locking system (PHILOS) in the treatment of split-type fractures of humeral greater tuberosity.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the 54 patients with split-type fracture of humeral greater tuberosity who had been admitted to Department of Joint Surgery, Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Affiliated to Southwest Medical University from May 2015 to August 2020. There were 17 males and 37 females with an age of (58.4±12.1) years. According to different treatment methods, they were divided into 3 groups. Group A of 18 cases was treated with arthroscopic hollow screws combined with a suture anchor, group B of 18 cases with hollow screws, and group C of 18 cases with PHILOS. The length of surgical incision, and range of shoulder motion, visual analogue scale (VAS), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at the last follow-up were recorded and compared between the 3 groups.Results:There was no statistically significant difference in the preoperative general information between the 3 groups, indicating the 3 groups were comparable ( P>0.05). The surgical incision in group A [(0.7±0.1) cm] was the shortest, followed by (5.0±1.4) cm in group B, and (12.8±2.1) cm in group C, showing statistically significant differences in pairwise comparison ( P<0.05). In the 3 groups at the last follow-up, respectively, the shoulder forward flexion was 159.7°±13.4°, 154.9°±16.2°, and 160.5°±12.9°, and the shoulder abduction 149.6°±11.3°, 142.4°±12.0°, and 145.1°±10.4°, showing no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups ( P>0.05); the external rotation was 41.1°±8.1°, 38.1°±7.8° and 43.7°±6.2°, showing a statistically significant difference between groups B and C ( P<0.05); the dorsal extension was T 12 (L 5 to T 6), T 12 (L 5 to T 7), and T 12 (L 3 to T 6), showing no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups ( P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups in the VAS score or ASES score at the last follow-up ( P>0.05). Respectively, there were 2, 6, and 4 patients in groups A, B and C who developed complications, showing statistically significant differences between the 3 groups ( P<0.05). Conclusions:In the treatment of split fractures of humeral greater tuberosity, arthroscopic hollow screws combined with a suture anchor, hollow screws and PHILOS can all relieve pain and restore joint function of the shoulder. However, arthroscopic hollow screws combined with a suture anchor are the most recommendable due to their advantages in minimally invasiveness and reduction in complications.
