JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Orthopaedics Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2017/26782.10304
Year : 2017 | Month : Jul | Volume : 11 | Issue : 7 Full Version Page : RC10 - RC13

Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures using PHILOS Plate

Chintan Doshi1, Gaurav Mahesh Sharma2, Lokesh Gudda Naik3, Krishna Sudhakar Badgire4, Faisal Qureshi5

1 Junior Consultant, Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute for orthopaedics and rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
2 Clinical Associate, Department of Orthopaedics, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
3 Clinical Associate, Department of Orthopaedics, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
4 Clinical Associate, Department of Orthopaedics, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
5 Clinical Associate, Department of Orthopaedics, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Gaurav Mahesh Sharma, Clinical Associate, Department of Orthopaedics, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital, Prathana Samaj, Girgaon, Mumbai-400004, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: sharmagaurav@live.com
Abstract

Introduction

Treatment of proximal humerus fractures always holds a dilemma for the treating surgeon.

Aim

To assess the functional outcome of proximal humerus fractures treated with Proximal Humerus Internal Locking System (PHILOS) plating.

Material and Methods

Fifty three condivutive patients were treated with PHILOS plating between August 2013 and August 2014. The inclusion criteria were skeletally matured patients with closed fracture proximal humerus with displacement >1 cm and varus angulation of >450. Severely comminuted fractures, open fractures and valgus impacted fractures were excluded from the study. The outcome was assessed using Neer’s scoring system.

Results

The average age was 54.3±5.8 years. As per the Neers classification system, there were 6 (11.32%) 1-part, 19 (35.85%) 2-part, 17 (32.085) and 11 (20.75%) 3 and 4-part fracture respectively. Average surgical duration was 94±10.2 minutes. Radiological union was seen at 12±4.6 weeks. There were 2 (3.77%) cases of varus collapse. Three (5.66%) cases had screw back out, which was later revised and had a favourable outcome. As per the Neer’s scoring system, 7 (13.21%) cases had excellent results, 37 (69.81%) had satisfactory, 6 (11.32%) had unsatisfactory while 3 (05.66%) cases had poor outcomes.

Conclusion

PHILOS plating has a good functional outcome. However, proper patient selection, thorough knowledge of the anatomy and biomechanical principles are the pre-requisites for a successful surgery.

Keywords

Introduction

Proximal humeral fractures are the second most common fractures of the upper extremity accounting for 4% to 5% of all fractures [1]. Majority of undisplaced proximal humeral fractures can be treated with a sling immobilization and physical therapy [2]. However, approximately 20% of displaced proximal humeral fractures require surgery [3].

Conservative treatment is usually associated with nonunion, malunion and avascular necrosis resulting in a painful dysfunction [4,5].

The surgical modalities used are transosseous suture fixation, closed reduction and percutaneous fixation, open reduction and internal fixation with conventional plates, locking plate fixation and hemiarthroplasty which have shown to have mixed results [3,6]. Pre-countoured locking compression plates are fixed angled devices which prevent subsidence in the metaphyseal areas [7-9]. These plates alleviate the risk of malreduction and preserve the blood supply to the bone.

The aim of this study was to assess the functional outcome in proximal humeral fractures treated with locking plates using Neer’s shoulder score.

Materials and Methods

A prospective study was conducted on 53 patients with closed proximal humerus fractures treated with PHILOS. All the patients presenting to the emergency/outpatient department between August 2013 and August 2014 were enrolled in the study.

The inclusion criteria were skeletally matured patients with closed fracture proximal humerus with a displacement of > 1 cm and a varus angulation of >450. Severely comminuted, open fractures and valgus impacted fractures were excluded from the study.

All the necessary preoperative work-up for the patients was done in the form of haematological and radiological examinations. Well written informed consent was taken from all the patients. Prior Ethical Committee approval was obtained before commencing the study.

Surgical Technique

General anaesthesia combined with a regional block was used and a beach chair position was given to all the patients. Three doses of third generation cephalosporin were given perioperatively. A deltopectoral approach was utilized and the necessary surgical steps were followed. An 8 cm to 10 cm incision starting from corocoid process was taken along the line of deltopectoral groove. The internervous plane between deltoid and the pectoralis major muscle was identified and separated. The cephalic vein was retracted laterally or medially depending upon the exposure. The subscapularis muscle was made taut with external rotation and incised in line of its fibres. The fracture fragments were identified and the haematoma was cleared off completely. Tag sutures were taken through the rotator cuff muscles for later repair.

Preliminary reduction was done with the help of K wires and checked in both the orthogonal views. PHILOS plate (Depuysynthes® Switzerland) was applied about 5-8 mm distal to the greater tuberosity and around 2-4 mm posterior to the bicepital groove. The plate was first fixed to the distal fragment and then screws were inserted in the head as per the woodpecker technique. Final reduction was checked in both the orthogonal views. The previously tagged sutures of the rotator cuff were passed through the holes in the plate and sutured. Meticulous closure was done in all the cases. All the patients were kept in arm pouch postoperatively. Mobilization was started from postoperative day one. Similar pain management protocols were followed in all the cases.

All the patients were assessed by same orthopaedic surgeon at a regular interval of three, six and 12 months interval. Clinical assessment was done in the form of pain, function and range of movements. Antero-posterior and axial X-rays were performed for all the patients at each follow up to assess the fracture union. One patient missed the six monthly follow up but was still included in the study as he was present at 12 months follow-up.

Statistical Analysis

The qualitative variables were expressed in proportion and quantitative variables were summarized by mean and standard deviation. All the data was analysed using Epi-Info software (Version 3.5.4) and Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft Office v15.0).

Results

The average age of the patient was 54.3±5.8 years. A total of 24 (45.29%) cases were males and 29 (54.71%) were females in the present study. All 31 (58.49%) cases had right sided involvement while left sided involvement was seen in 22 (41.51%) cases. Eighteen (33.96%) had road traffic accident while 35 (66.04%) cases had a fall following which they sustained the fracture. All the fractures were classified as per the Neer’s classification system which showed that there were 6 (11.32%) cases of 1-part, 19 (35.85%) cases of 2-part, 17 (32.085) and 11 (20.75%) cases of 3-part and 4-part respectively.

The average surgical duration was 94±10.2 minutes. Radiological union was seen at 12±4.6 weeks. There were 2 (3.77%) cases of varus collapse with unsatisfactory results. Union was however observed in both these patients. Both patients had limited range of movements at the terminal follow up. Three (5.66%) cases had screw back out which was later revised with hemiarthroplasty with favourable outcome. The reason for the backout could be severe comminution and osteoporosis in elderly patients. No patient had shoulder impingement.

There was one (1.89%) case of superficial infection which responded well to oral antibiotics. There were no cases of avascular necrosis seen in the present study. As per the Neer’s scoring system [Table/Fig-1], 7 (13.21%) cases had excellent results, 37 (69.81%) had satisfactory, 6 (11.32%) had unsatisfactory while 3 (05.66%) cases had poor outcome [Table/Fig-2,3,4 and 5].

Neer’s scoring system.

Functional
PainScores
No Pain35
Slight, occasional, no compromise in activity30
Mild, no effect on ordinary activity25
Moderate, tolerable, makes concessions15
Marked, serious limitations5
Totally disabled0
Function
Strength- normal10
Good8
Fair6
Poor4
Trace2
Zero0
Reaching- Top of Head2
Mouth2
Belt buckle2
Opposite axilla2
Brassiere hook2
Stability- lifting2
Throwing2
Pounding2
Pushing2
Hold overhead2
Range of Motion
Flexion- 18006
17005
13004
10003
8002
<8001
Abduction 18006
17005
14004
10003
8002
<8001
Extension 4503
3002
1501
<1500
External Rotation 6005
3003
1001
<1000
Internal Rotation 9005
7004
5003
3002
<3000
Anatomy (Rotation, Angulation)
None10
Mild8
Moderate4
Marked0-2
Results
90-100 PointsExcellent
80-89 PointsSatisfactory
70-79 PointsUnsatisfactory
<70 PointsFailure

Preoperative X-ray.

Immediate post-operative.

Follow up at one year.

Plate cut out.

Discussion

Proximal humerus fractures can be one of the most devastating entities to treat. These fractures usually show a bimodal age distribution with high energy velocity injuries in younger population to trivial trauma in older age groups. Although, undisplaced fractures can be treated non-operatively with favourable outcome, fractures with intra-articular extension and severe comminution necessitate surgical fixation [9,10].

These fractures are difficult to manage conservatively owing to their anatomical location which renders bracing, ineffective. Surgical options like percutaneous K wires are associated with less soft tissue damage, less blood loss and neurovascular injury. But these techniques do not ensure stable anatomical reduction and hinders early mobilization and fracture healing. Moreover, complications like pin tract infection and delayed mobilization, further curtails the indications for this procedure [11].

Options like multiloc nailing and plating each have their own advantages and disadvantages and the debate for the superior implant continues. Nailing being load sharing devices have biomechanical superiority over plating systems. Hessmann MH et al., in their study of 160 patients over six months follow up stated that 93.7% cases had good to excellent results as per the surgeon’s view [12].

Internal fixation with non-locking plates has resulted in poor clinical outcomes and high failure rates in the past. Pre-countoured anatomical locking compression plates are more versatile with higher rates of union, especially in osteoporotic bones [13,14]. They provide more stable buttress laterally and the diverging screw options in the cancellous bone, makes them the implant of choice in complex fractures. The forces are transmitted from the bone to the screw head and then to the plate and thus these plates have a better stability than the non-locking plates. Siffri PC et al., in their cadaveric study suggested that locking plates have better torsional stability when compared to non-locking plates [15]. Second generation locking plates advocates the use of anterolateral deltoid split approach to preserve the blood supply of the humeral head, use of rotator cuff sutures, medial column stabilization and use of endosteal supports [13,15]. We had no experience with the second generation plates and deltoid splitting approach. All the surgeries executed in the present study were done using the delto-pectoral approach.

There are few complications like plate breakage, screw cut out, avascular necrosis, varusmal reduction and revision surgery associated with the use of locking plates [16,17]. Owse ley KC and Gorczyca JT in their series of 53 patients had a screw cut out rate of 23% [18]. They also stated that screw cut out is one of the most common reasons for revision surgery. The rate of screw cut out in the present study was 5.66%. This failure can be attributed to majority of the patients in elderly age group with osteoporotic bones.

Fracture geometry also plays an important role in the final outcome. Hertel R et al., in their series of 100 patients with intracapsular humerus fracture assessed the perfusion with the help of Doppler study [19]. They developed a binary description system and concluded that anatomical neck fracture, shorter calcar and disruption of the posteromedial hinge when present together has a positive predictive value for ischaemia of 97%. Avascular necrosis is another but delayed complication which occurs in three and four part fractures with severe comminution. It usually occurs years after the fixation and can cause poor functional outcomes [20,21]. Still, there are few series which shows favourable outcomes inspite of avascular necrosis [22]. There was no case of avascular necrosis encountered in the present study. Short term follow up can be one of the reasons that this complication was not seen.

Reduction of the fracture is of paramount importance in any surgery which holds true even for proximal humerus fractures. Varusreduction is one of the serious intraoperative complications which are unaccepatble as it leads to early failure in most of the cases. In the present study, difficulty in reduction was encountered in 3.77% cases which lead to varus collapse. These cases were revised with hemiarthroplasty due to severe osteoporosis. In our experience, patients with two part fractures did well as compared to three and four part fracture cases. Although, many people state that the results of hemiarthroplasty in three and four part fractures are superior to plating, recent meta-analysis deny the same [22].

Proper placement of the plate is equally important for a superior outcome in these fractures. These plates, unlike non-locking plates, are anatomically pre-countoured and thus even a slight displacement can result in shoulder impingement. The ideal position of the upper most extent of the plate is 5 mm-8 mm distal to the greater tuberosity as per the AO-OTA principles. There have been cases with shoulder impingement varying from 1.8%-8% in the literature [23-27]. In contrast to the aforementioned studies, there were no cases of impingement found in the present study, which was highly statistically significant (p<0.0001).

The average time for radiological union was 12±4.5 weeks which is comparable to the previous studies [7,17]. Final results were compared with the study by Neer [28], using the Neer’s scoring system which was statistically significant (p<0.05).

Limitation

Less sample size and short duration of follow-up remains the limitations of the study.

Conclusion

Fractures of the proximal humerus have always been perplexing. We believe that despite the associated complication rates, these plates work wonderfully in situations with severe osteoporosis and comminution. Varus reduction with a metaphyseal beak longer than 2 mm as described by Hertel have good and favourable functional outcome. Proper patient selection and thorough knowledge of the anatomy and biomechanical principles are the pre-requisites for a successful surgery.

References

[1]Neer CS II, Rockwood CA, Fractures and dislocations of the shoulder, in Rockwood and Green: Fractures in adults 1984 Philadelphia, PALippincott:675-721.  [Google Scholar]

[2]Iannotti JP, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Warner JJP, Nonprosthetic management of proximal humeral fractures J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003 85:1578-93.  [Google Scholar]

[3]Nho SJ, Brophy RH, Barker JU, Cornell CN, MacGillivray JD, Management of proximal humerus fracture based on current literature J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007 89(3):44-58.  [Google Scholar]

[4]Zyto K, Non-operative treatment of comminuted fracture of proximal humerus in elderly patients Injury 1998 29(5):349-52.  [Google Scholar]

[5]Russo R, Lombardi LV, Ciccarelli M, Giudice G, Cautiero F, A new osteosynthesis device for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Description of the technique and preliminary results Chir Organi Mov 2008 91(1):27-34.  [Google Scholar]

[6]Michael W, Andre F, Robert F, Locked plating: biomechanics and biology and locked plating: clinical indications Techniques in Orthopaedics 2007 22(4):209-18.  [Google Scholar]

[7]Moonot P, Ashwood N, Hamlet M, Early results for treatment of three- and fourpart fractures of the proximal humerus using the PHILOS plate system J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007 89(9):1206-09.  [Google Scholar]

[8]Bigliani LU, Fractures of the proximal humerus. In: Rockwood CA, Matsen FA, eds The Shoulder 1990 PhiladelphiaW. B. Saunders:278-334.  [Google Scholar]

[9]Nho SJ, Brophy RH, Barker JU, Cornell SJ, MacGillivray JD, Management of proximal humeral fractures based on current literature J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007 89(3):44-58.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Friess DM, Attia A, Locking plate fixation for proximal humerus fractures: a comparison with other fixation techniques Orthopaedics 2008 31(12):piiorthosupersite  [Google Scholar]

[11]Jaura GS, Sikdar J, Singh S, Long term results of PHILOS plating and percutaneous K wire fixation in proximal Humerus fracture in the elderly Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal 2014 8(1):04-07.  [Google Scholar]

[12]Hessmann MH, Nijs S, Mittlmeir T, Kloub M, Segers MJ, Winkelback V, Internal fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus with the multilocnail Oper Orthop Traumatol 2012 24(4-5):418-31.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Gavaskar AS, Karthik BB, Tummala NC, Srinivasan P, Gopalan H, Second generation locked plating for complex proximal humerus fractures in very elderly patients Injury 2016 47(11):2534-38.  [Google Scholar]

[14]Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P, Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective myulticenter analysis J Orthop Trauma 2009 23(3):163-72.  [Google Scholar]

[15]Siffri PC, Peindi RD, Coley ER, Biomechanical analysis of blade versus locking plate fixation for proximal humerus fracture: comparison using cadaveric and synthetic humeri J Orthop Trauma 2006 20(8):547-54.  [Google Scholar]

[16]Sudkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M, Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures with use of locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicentre, observational study J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009 91(6):1320-28.  [Google Scholar]

[17]Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG, The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures J Orthop Trauma 2007 21(3):185-91.  [Google Scholar]

[18]Owsley KC, Gorczyca JT, Fracture displacement and screw cutout after open reduction and locked plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures corrected J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008 90(2):01-06.  [Google Scholar]

[19]Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximalhumerus J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004 13(4):427-33.  [Google Scholar]

[20]Gerber C, Lambert SM, Hoogewoud HM, Absence of avascular necrosis of the humeral head after post-traumatic rupture of anterior and posterior humeral circumflex arteries. A case report J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996 78(8):1256-59.  [Google Scholar]

[21]Wijgman AJ, Roolker W, Palt T, Raaymakers EL, Marti RK, Open reduction and internal fixation of three and four part fractures of proximal humerus J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002 84-A(11):1919-25.  [Google Scholar]

[22]Dai J, Chai Y, Wang C, Wen G, Metaanalysis comparing locking plate fixation with hemiarthroplasty for complex humeral fractures Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014 24(3):305-13.  [Google Scholar]

[23]Ramchander S, Roop S, Rajesh Kumar R, Virender Singh K, Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with Locking Proximal Humeral Plate (LPHP) in elderly patients with osteoporosis J Orthopaed Traumatol 2008 9(3):149-53.  [Google Scholar]

[24]Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P, Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis J Orthop Trauma 2009 23(3):163-72.  [Google Scholar]

[25]Aggarwal S, Bali K, Dhillon MS, Kumar V, Mootha AK, Displaced proximal humeral fractures: an Indian experience with locking plates Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2010 5:60  [Google Scholar]

[26]Roderer G, Erhardt J, Graf M, Kinzl L, Gebhard F, Clinical results for minimally invasive locked plating of proximal humerus fractures J Orthop Trauma 2010 24(7):400-06.  [Google Scholar]

[27]Vijayvargiya M, Pathak A, Gaur S, Outcome analysis of locking plate fixation in proximal humerus fracture Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2016 10(8):R01-R05.  [Google Scholar]

[28]Neer CS, Displaced proximal humeral fracture: Part 1: Classification and evaluation J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1970 52(6):1077-89.  [Google Scholar]