Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mid-term results of minimally invasive deltoid-split versus standard open deltopectoral approach for PHILOS™ (proximal humeral internal locking system) osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Only a few reports compare the mid- and long-term outcome of the minimally invasive deltoid split (MIDS) with the classic anterior deltopectoral (DP) approach for osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures. This study compared the mid-term functional and the radiological results in patients with proximal humeral fractures undergoing osteosynthesis with the proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS™).

Methods

All patients undergoing osteosynthesis between 2008 and 2015 were clinically and radiologically examined with a minimal follow-up period of 1 year. Functional outcomes were analyzed using the DASH- and Constant Shoulder Scores (CSS). Radiological results were analyzed using a newly developed score.

Results

Thirty-nine patients underwent PHILOS™ osteosynthesis with the MIDS and twenty-three with the DP approach. Follow-up time was 41 months in the MIDS group and 62 months in the DP group, respectively. The median CSS was similar with 79 points in the MIDS group and 82 points in the DP group (p = 0.17). The MIDS group showed a significant lower power measurement in the CSS. In four-part fractures, a substantially lower CSS in absolute numbers in the MIDS group was detected. The median DASH score was 26.7 points in the MIDS group and 25.8 points in the DP group (p = 0.48). There was no difference in the radiological score. More patients with partial avascular necrosis (AVN) were found in the MIDS group, most with three- and four-part fractures. However, this was not statistically significant. Morbidity was similar between groups.

Conclusion

The results of the two surgical approaches are statistically comparable. Some differences such as a lower power measurement in the MIDS group, a higher partial AVN frequency and more plate removals are observed. In four-part fractures, the CSS was lower in the MIDS compared to the DP cohort. The MIDS technique might not be a solution for all fracture types, and the surgeon should be careful to analyze the morphology of the fracture before deciding upon the approach. Four-part fractures might be better treated with a DP approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lippuner K, Popp AW, Schwab P, Gitlin M, Schaufler T, Senn C, et al. Fracture hospitalizations between years 2000 and 2007 in Switzerland: a trend analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(9):2487–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baron JA, Karagas M, Barrett J, Kniffin W, Malenka D, Mayor M, et al. Basic epidemiology of fractures of the upper and lower limb among Americans over 65 years of age. Epidemiology. 1996;7(6):612–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Jarvinen M, Vuori I. Osteoporotic fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly Finnish persons: sharp increase in 1970–1998 and alarming projections for the new millennium. Acta Orthopaed Scand. 2000;71(5):465–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 1970;52(6):1077–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 1970;52(6):1090–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Habermeyer P. Die Humeruskopffraktur. Der Unfallchirurg. 1997;100:820–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moonot P, Ashwood N, Hamlet M. Early results for treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus using the PHILOS plate system. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2007;89(9):1206–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Acklin YP, Jenni R, Walliser M, Sommer C. Minimal, Invasive. PHILOS((R))-plate osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2009;35(1):35–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lin T, Xiao B, Ma X, Fu D, Yang S. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis with a locking compression plate is superior to open reduction and internal fixation in the management of the proximal humerus fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu K, Liu PC, Liu R, Wu X. Advantage of minimally invasive lateral approach relative to conventional deltopectoral approach for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:496–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hepp P, Theopold J, Voigt C, Engel T, Josten C, Lill H. The surgical approach for locking plate osteosynthesis of displaced proximal humeral fractures influences the functional outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1):21–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu CH, Ma CH, Yeh JJ, Yen CY, Yu SW, Tu YK. Locked plating for proximal humeral fractures: differences between the deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting approaches. J Trauma. 2011;71(5):1364–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vijayvargiya M, Pathak A, Gaur S. Outcome analysis of locking plate fixation in proximal humerus fracture. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(8):RC01–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Buecking B, Mohr J, Bockmann B, Zettl R, Ruchholtz S. Deltoid-split or deltopectoral approaches for the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(5):1576–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987(214):160–4.

  16. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ficat RP. Idiopathic bone necrosis of the femoral head. Early diagnosis and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 1985;67(1):3–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gardner MJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The anterolateral acromial approach for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(2):132–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Visser CP, Coene LN, Brand R, Tavy DL. Nerve lesions in proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg Am Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):421–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Visser CP, Tavy DL, Coene LN, Brand R. Electromyographic findings in shoulder dislocations and fractures of the proximal humerus: comparison with clinical neurological examination. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1999;101(2):86–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Roderer G, Erhardt J, Kuster M, Vegt P, Bahrs C, Kinzl L, et al. Second generation locked plating of proximal humerus fractures—a prospective multicentre observational study. Int Orthop. 2011;35(3):425–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Leunig M. Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg Am Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(4):427–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kruithof RN, Formijne Jonkers HA, van der Ven DJC, van Olden GDJ, Timmers TK. Functional and quality of life outcome after non-operatively managed proximal humeral fractues. J Orthop Traumatol. 2017;18(4):423–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koljonen PA, Fang C, Lau TW, Leung F, Cheung NW. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for proximal humeral fractures. J Orthop Surg. 2015;23(2):160–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. T. Glass for performing the statistical analyses, Ms. P. Heeb, Scientific Assistant, for her support in recruiting the patients and organizing the follow-up appointments, and Ms. C. Vines, MD, for the English language revision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Limmattal Hospital, Urdorferstrasse 100, 8952, Zurich-Schlieren, Switzerland

    Joëlle Borer, Philipp Lenzlinger, Urs Zingg & Arby Babians

  2. Department of Radiology, Limmattal Hospital, Urdorferstrasse 100, 8952, Zurich-Schlieren, Switzerland

    Jochen Schwarz & Silke Potthast

  3. Department of Trauma and Orthopedics, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    Marcel Jakob

Authors
  1. Joëlle Borer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jochen Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silke Potthast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcel Jakob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philipp Lenzlinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Urs Zingg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arby Babians
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arby Babians.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Joëlle Borer, Arby Babians, Jochen Schwarz, Silke Potthast, Marcel Jakob, Philipp Lenzlinger, and Urs Zingg declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borer, J., Schwarz, J., Potthast, S. et al. Mid-term results of minimally invasive deltoid-split versus standard open deltopectoral approach for PHILOS™ (proximal humeral internal locking system) osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 46, 825–834 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01076-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01076-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation