Advertisement

Inferior displacement of greater tuberosity fracture suggests an occult humeral neck fracture: a retrospective single-centre study

  • Jianhong Wu
  • Zhihua Han
  • Qiugen Wang
  • Xiaoming WuEmail author
Original Paper
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To radiographically characterize the relationship between inferior displacement of great tuberosity (GT) fracture and associated occult or minor displaced humeral neck fracture.

Methods

Thirty patients with inferior displacement of the GT on the initial anterior-posterior (AP) view X-ray were included in this study. Twenty-four patients received further computed tomography (CT) scans. One patient with negative CT scans underwent MRI. Radiographic indexes included the cervico-diaphyseal angle, the distance of the inferior displacement of the GT fracture, the apex-tuberosity distance, and the direction of the GT shift on the 3D-CT scan. The measurement reliability was analyzed by calculating intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients. The relationships between the parameters were revealed using Pearson correlation analysis.

Results

In the 30 cases, humeral neck fractures were detected by AP view X-ray (6 cases), CT (23 cases), and MRI (1 case). The mean cervico-diaphyseal angle was 146.7° ± 8.9°. The mean inferior displacement of the GT fracture was 13.4 ± 5.9 mm. The mean apex-tuberosity distance was 11.8 ± 2.8 mm. Posterior/inferior displacement of the GT fractures was observed in 24 patients via CT scan. All the evaluated parameters presented correlations among methods, indicating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. The Pearson correlation analysis revealed that inferior displacement of GT fracture was correlated with the cervico-diaphyseal angle (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The inferior displacement of GT fracture on AP view X-ray is a useful diagnostic clue for the early recognition of occult humeral neck fracture and may indicate the need for further CT/MRI examination.

Keywords

Greater tuberosity Shoulder Humeral neck Fracture Radiography 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Given the retrospective nature of this study, written consent was not obtained. However, all patient records were anonymized prior to the analysis. Related data were obtained from the hospital’s electronic and written medical records. The study was reviewed by and obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board of Shanghai General Hospital.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:365–371.  https://doi.org/10.1080/000164701753542023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruson KI, Ruchelsman DE, Tejwani NC (2008) Isolated tuberosity fractures of the proximal humeral: current concepts. Injury 39:284–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.09.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahrs C, Lingenfelter E, Fischer F et al (2006) Mechanism of injury and morphology of the greater tuberosity fracture. J Shoulder Elb Surg 15:140–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaspar S, Mandel S (2004) Acromial impression fracture of the greater tuberosity with rotator cuff avulsion due to hyperabduction injury of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13:112–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058274603001770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pauly S, Scheibel M (2016) Rotator cuff avulsion fractures. Current concepts in the surgical treatment. Orthopade 45:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-015-3214-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verdano MA, Aliani D, Pellegrini A et al (2014) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity in proximal humerus: does the direction of displacement influence functional outcome? An analysis of displacement in greater tuberosity fractures. Acta Biomed 84:219–228Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ogawa K, Yoshida A, Ikegami H (2003) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the humerus: solutions to recognizing a frequently overlooked fracture. J Trauma 54:713–717.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TA.0000057230.30979.49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mutch JAJ, Rouleau DM, Laflamme G-Y, Hagemeister N (2014) Accurate measurement of greater tuberosity displacement without computed tomography: validation of a method on plain radiography to guide surgical treatment. J Orthop Trauma 28:445–451.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Melean P, Munjin A, Perez A et al (2017) Coronal displacement in proximal humeral fractures: correlation between shoulder radiographic and computed tomography scan measurements. J Shoulder Elb Surg 26:56–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boileau P, Walch G (1997) The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 79:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richards B, Riley J, Saithna A (2016) Improving the diagnostic quality and adequacy of shoulder radiographs in a District General Hospital. BMJ Qual Improv reports 5.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u209855.w3501
  13. 13.
    Petje G, Manndorff P, Aigner N et al (2000) Radiographic evaluation of the acromion in impingement syndrome: comparison with arthroscopic findings in 147 shoulders. Acta Orthop Scand 71:609–612.  https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317362253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Routman H (2007) The wheelchair axillary view of the shoulder. Orthopedics 30:265–266Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Court-Brown CM, Cattermole H, McQueen MM (2002) Impacted valgus fractures (B1.1) of the proximal humerus. The results of non-operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 84:504–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jakob RP, Miniaci A, Anson PS et al (1991) Four-part valgus impacted fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 73:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rouleau DM, Mutch J, Laflamme G-Y (2016) Surgical treatment of displaced greater tuberosity fractures of the humerus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:46–56.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bono CM, Renard R, Levine RG, Levy AS (2001) Effect of displacement of fractures of the greater tuberosity on the mechanics of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 83:1056–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neer CS 2nd (2002) Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures: purpose and reliable use. J Shoulder Elb Surg 11:389–400.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2002.124346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson CM, Longino D, Murray IR, Duckworth AD (2010) Proximal humerus fractures with valgus deformity of the humeral head: the spectrum of injury, clinical assessment and treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19:1105–1114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Oberleitner G et al (2008) Displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. J Trauma 65:843–848.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000233710.42698.3f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bahrs C, Rolauffs B, Dietz K et al (2010) Clinical and radiological evaluation of minimally displaced proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:673–679.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0975-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Platzer P, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Lehr S et al (2005) The influence of displacement on shoulder function in patients with minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity. Injury 36:1185–1189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rath E, Alkrinawi N, Levy O et al (2013) Minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: outcome of non-operative treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:e8–e11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mattyasovszky SG, Burkhart KJ, Ahlers C et al (2011) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus: a long-term retrospective study of 30 patients. Acta Orthop 82:714–720.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.618912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLaughlin-Symon I, Kenyon P, Morgan B, Ravenscroft M (2015) A new “trapdoor technique” for fixation of displaced greater tuberosity fractures of the shoulder. J Hand Microsurg 7:241–243.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12593-015-0190-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gillespie RJ, Johnston PS, Gordon VA et al (2015) Using plate osteosynthesis to treat isolated greater tuberosity fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 44:E248–E251Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gracitelli MEC, Malavolta EA, Assuncao JH et al (2017) Locking intramedullary nails versus locking plates for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Expert Rev Med Devices 14:733–739.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2017.1364624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianhong Wu
    • 1
  • Zhihua Han
    • 1
    • 2
  • Qiugen Wang
    • 1
  • Xiaoming Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Traumatology, Trauma Center, Shanghai General Hospital, School of MedicineShanghai Jiaotong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Experimental Trauma and Orthopedics, Frankfurt Initiative for Regenerative MedicineJ.W. Goethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations