4.6 Article

Hemiarthroplasty for Humeral Four-part Fractures for Patients 65 Years and Older A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
卷 470, 期 12, 页码 3483-3491

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2531-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc
  2. Johnson & Johnson company (Warsaw, IN, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Four-part fractures of the proximal humerus account for 3% of all humeral fractures and are regarded as the most difficult fractures to treat in the elderly. Various authors recommend nonoperative treatment or hemiarthroplasty, but the literature is unclear regarding which provides better quality of life and function. Questions/purposes We therefore performed a randomized controlled trial to compare (1) function, (2) strength, and (3) pain and disability in patients 65 years and older with four-part humeral fractures treated either nonoperatively or with hemiarthroplasty. Methods We randomly allocated 50 patients to one of the two approaches. There were no differences in patient demographics between the two groups. The Constant-Murley score was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were the Simple Shoulder Test, abduction strength test as measured by a myometer, and VAS scores for pain and disability. All patients were assessed at 12 months. Results We found no between-group differences in Constant-Murley and Simple Shoulder Test scores at 3- and 12-months followup. Abduction strength was better at 3 and 12 months in the nonoperatively treated group although the nonoperatively treated patients experienced more pain at 3 months; this difference could not be detected after 12 months. Conclusions We observed no clear benefits in treating patients 65 years or older with four-part fractures of the proximal humerus with either hemiarthroplasty or nonoperative treatment. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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

4.6
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