4.3 Review

Nonoperative Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 612-617

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182008df8

关键词

proximal humerus fracture; nonoperative; malunion; avascular necrosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Proximal humerus fractures are common in the setting of osteopenia and osteoporosis and can often be treated nonoperatively. There are few studies that evaluate the long-term outcomes of nonoperative treatment of these fractures. We performed a systematic review of the literature to examine the results of nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Methods: The PubMed search engine and EMBASE database were used. Inclusion criteria were: 1) proximal humerus fractures resulting from trauma; 2) age older than 18 years; 3) more than 15 patients in the study; 4) greater than 1 year follow-up; 5) at least one relevant functional outcome score; and 6) a quality outcome score of at least a 5 of 10 according to previously published scoring system. Results: We identified 12 studies that included 650 patients with a mean age of 65.0 years (range, 51-75 years) and a mean follow-up of 45.7 months (range, 12-120 months). There were 317 one-part fractures, 165 two-part fractures, 137 three-part fractures, and 31 four-part fractures. The rate of radiographic union was 98% and the complication rate 13%. The average range of motion reported in five studies was 139 degrees forward flexion, 48 degrees external rotation, and 52 degrees internal rotation. The average Constant score reported in six studies was 74 (range, 55-81). Varus malunion was the most common complication reported, whereas avascular necrosis was uncommon (13 cases). Conclusions: We conclude that our systematic review of the literature on the nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures demonstrates high rates of radiographic healing, good functional outcomes, and a modest complication rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据