Validation of a new classification for periprosthetic shoulder fractures
- 135 Downloads
Successful treatment of periprosthetic shoulder fractures depends on the right strategy, starting with a well-structured classification of the fracture. Unfortunately, clinically relevant factors for treatment planning are missing in the pre-existing classifications. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to describe a new specific classification system for periprosthetic shoulder fractures including a structured treatment algorithm for this important fragility fracture issue.
The classification was established, focussing on five relevant items, naming the prosthesis type, the fracture localisation, the rotator cuff status, the anatomical fracture region and the stability of the implant. After considering each single item, the individual treatment concept can be assessed in one last step. To evaluate the introduced classification, a retrospective analysis of pre- and post-operative data of patients, treated with periprosthetic shoulder fractures, was conducted by two board certified trauma surgery consultants.
The data of 19 patients (8 male, 11 female) with a mean age of 74 ± five years have been analysed in our study. The suggested treatment algorithm was proven to be reliable, detected by good clinical outcome in 15 of 16 (94%) cases, where the suggested treatment was maintained. Only one case resulted in poor outcome due to post-operative wound infection and had to be revised.
The newly developed six-step classification is easy to utilise and extends the pre-existing classification systems in terms of clinically-relevant information. This classification should serve as a simple tool for the surgeon to consider the optimal treatment for his patients.
KeywordsShoulder arthroplasty Complication Risk factors Classification Osteoporosis
Range of motion
Open reduction and internal fixation
We thank Fritz Seidl, M.A. Interpreting and Translating, for professional language editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal conflicts of interests that could have influenced this work.
- 10.Mineo GV, Accetta R, Franceschini M, Pedrotti Dell'Acqua G, Calori GM, Meersseman A (2013) Management of shoulder periprosthetic fractures: our institutional experience and review of the literature. Injury 44(Suppl 1):S82–S85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(13)70018-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Greiner S, Stein V, Scheibel M (2011) Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cechoslov 78(6):490–500Google Scholar
- 14.Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 96:713–716Google Scholar
- 18.Gilot G, Alvarez-Pinzon AM, Wright TW, Flurin PH, Krill M, Routman HD, Zuckerman JD (2015) The incidence of radiographic aseptic loosening of the humeral component in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(10):1555–1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Malavolta EA, Assuncao JH, Guglielmetti CL, de Souza FF, Gracitelli ME, Bordalo-Rodrigues M, Ferreira Neto AA (2016) Accuracy of preoperative MRI in the diagnosis of subscapularis tears. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(10):1425–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2507-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar