切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肩肘外科电子杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 06 ›› Issue (01) : 19 -24. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5790.2018.01.004

所属专题: 文献

论著

锁定钢板结合异体腓骨治疗头内翻型肱骨近端骨折
张硕1, 汪秋柯2, 陈云丰2, 王磊2,()   
  1. 1. 230601 合肥, 安徽医科大学第二附属医院骨科
    2. 200233 上海交通大学附属第六人民医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2017-06-13 出版日期:2018-02-05
  • 通信作者: 王磊
  • 基金资助:
    上海交通大学"医工交叉基金"项目(YG2016MS18)

Locking plate fixation with allogeneic fibula graft for treatment of varus impacted proximal humeral fractures

Shuo Zhang1, Qiuke Wang2, Yunfeng Chen2, Lei Wang2,()   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230601, China
    2. Department of Orthopaedics, the Affiliated 6th People's Hospital of Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200233, China
  • Received:2017-06-13 Published:2018-02-05
  • Corresponding author: Lei Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Lei, Email:
引用本文:

张硕, 汪秋柯, 陈云丰, 王磊. 锁定钢板结合异体腓骨治疗头内翻型肱骨近端骨折[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2018, 06(01): 19-24.

Shuo Zhang, Qiuke Wang, Yunfeng Chen, Lei Wang. Locking plate fixation with allogeneic fibula graft for treatment of varus impacted proximal humeral fractures[J]. Chinese Journal of Shoulder and Elbow(Electronic Edition), 2018, 06(01): 19-24.

目的

探讨锁定钢板结合异体腓骨治疗头内翻型肱骨近端骨折的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2013年6月至2015年6月安徽医科大学第二附属医院采用PHILOS锁定钢板固定治疗35例头内翻型肱骨近端骨折患者资料(术前颈干角<130°),按术中是否采用异体腓骨来加强内侧支撑分为两组,锁定钢板结合异体腓骨组与单纯锁定钢板组。锁定钢板结合异体腓骨组共11例,男6例、女5例,年龄为(60.27±12.32)岁;单纯锁定钢板组共24例,男10例、女14例,年龄为(50.21±17.60)岁。两组患者资料在基线水平差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。根据术后影像学资料评估颈干角,并计算术后1年与术后第1天颈干角的差值,应用术后1年随访时Constant-Murley评分及臂、肩、手功能障碍评分(disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score,DASH)评估患者肩关节功能。应用统计学比较两组术前基线水平(年龄、性别、骨折分型、是否抽烟、优势手及内侧柱是否粉碎)是否有差异,再比较术后1年两组颈干角差值及Constant-Murley评分是否有差异。

结果

术后1年锁定钢板结合异体腓骨组颈干角改变(-1.36±2.58)°,单纯锁定钢板组改变(-7.21±8.06)°,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.003)。术后1年锁定钢板结合异体腓骨组Constant-Murley评分(76.82±6.11)分,单纯锁定钢板组为(64.29±9.15)分,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.0002)。锁定钢板结合异体腓骨组DASH评分(15.55±2.98)分,单纯锁定钢板组为(25.96±9.35)分,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.001)。其中锁定钢板结合异体腓骨组有1例患者出现术后切口感染;单纯锁定钢板组有3例患者出现螺钉穿出,1例患者出现肱骨头缺血坏死。

结论

在治疗头内翻型肱骨近端骨折方面,锁定钢板结合异体腓骨能有效地增加术后骨折块的稳定性,减少术后颈干角的改变,提高术后的肩关节功能。

Background

Proximal humeral fractures account for about 4%-5% of all fractures in the whole body, and are only next to the distal radial fractures in the upper limb fractures. Thereinto, approximately 80% of proximal humeral fractures have slight displacement and can be treated conservatively, while the other 20% of them have obvious displacement which requires surgical interventions. The varus impacted proximal humeral fractures account for 10% of all proximal humeral fractures, and the efficacy of conservative treatment is unsatisfactory as simple application of locking plate is easy to produce a series of postoperative complications such as loss of reduction, varus impaction, plate fixation failure, screw piercing, fracture nonunion, humeral head necrosis, etc. The implantation of allogeneic fibula into proximal humeral intramedullary provides effective medial support, and combined with locking plate, it has been widely used in the treatment of comminuted metaphyseal fractures of proximal humerus, which has achieved satisfactory curative effect. However, there are still no reports about the clinical efficacy of locking plate combined with allogeneic fibula in the treatment of varus impacted proximal humeral fractures.

Methods

(1) General information.From June 2013 to June 2015, a total of 35 patients with varus impacted proximal humeral fractures treated in our hospital were included in this study. Thereinto, 11 cases were treated with locking plate and allogeneic fibula fixation, while the other 24 cases were treated with simple locking plate fixation. The group of locking plate combined with allogeneic fibula included 6 males and 5 females with an average age of (60.27±12.32) years. The group of locking plate fixation included 10 males and 14 females with an average age of (50.21±17.60) years. There was no statistical difference between the two groups at the baseline level (P>0.05) . (2) Inclusive and exclusive criteria.Inclusive criteria:①18 years of age or older;②acute varus impacted proximal humeral fractures (within 3 weeks and neck-shaft angle <130°) treated by locking plate fixation with or without allogeneic fibular graft;③follow-up time≥1 year with complete data. Exclusive criteria: ①pathological fracture, open fractures or multiple fractures; ②combination of neurovascular injuries; ③medical history that affects shoulder function, such as previous trauma history of ipsilateral limb, chronic arthritis, etc. (3) Treatment methods.All the enrolled patients completed the relevant examinations after admission, and were treated with open reduction and internal fixation. The patients in the experimental group were treated by locking plate fixation combined with allogeneic fibular graft, while the patients in the control group were simply treated with locking plate.After brachial plexus block or general anesthesia, the patient was in beach chair position during the operation. Through the deltoid-pectoralis approach, the soft tissue was softly separated to minimize periosteal dissection. After the exposure of fracture ends, the greater and lesser tuberosities were lifted by pulling the rotator cuff insertions with sutures and the humeral head was reduced. Then the allogeneic fibula was reversely inserted into the medullary cavity of humeral shaft. With the confirmation and adjustment of the fibular length (usually 4-6 cm) , the proximal fibula was under the cartilage of humeral head. The greater and lesser tuberosities were reduced with sutures and temporarily fixed with Kirschner wires. As the fracture reduction was satisfactory under fluoroscopy, the locking plate was used for fixation with sutures knotted through the suture holes on the plate. With satisfactory position of fracture fragments, plate and screws under fluoroscopy, the wound was irrigated and closed after hemostasis. The allogeneic fibular graft was saved in the control group, and all the locking plates used in the two groups were PHILOS plates. All the procedures were performed by 3 attending surgeons or higher ranks.All the patients followed the same rehabilitation programme: the affected limb was suspended for 4 weeks before starting passive movements, and active movements were allowed 8 weeks later. All the patients were followed up in the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 12th months with anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films of shoulder joint taken every time. The data of all patients were collected, including general information, preoperative X-ray films, CT scans, X-ray films on the 1st postoperative day, X-ray films taken in each follow up and functional scores (Constant-Murley scores and DASH scores) . The neck-shaft angles were measured on the shoulder radiographs of anteroposterior view to calculate the difference between values between the 1st postoperative day and the 12th month after operation. (4) Statistical analysis.The SPSS 20.0 software was adopted for statistical analysis. The ages, neck-shaft angels and functional scores were considered as quantitative data, while the gender, fracture types, smoking or not, dominant hand or not and comminution of medial column or not were considered as qualitative data. All the quantitative data were tested by the normality test and described as mean value±standard deviation, and the independent sample t test was used to analyze whether the difference was statistically significant. The qualitative data was described as constituent ratio, and chi square test was used to analyze whether the difference was statistically significant. When P <0.05, the difference was considered statistically significant.

Results

The fractures healed in two groups after 1 year. The change of neck-shaft angles was (-1.36±2.58) ° in the group of locking plate combined with allogeneic fibula while the angle was (-7.21±8.06) ° in the simple plate group, and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.003) . The Constant-Murley score was (76.82±6.11) points in the group of locking plate combined with allogeneic fibula while it was (64.29±9.15) points in the simple plate group, and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.0002) . The DASH score was (15.55±2.98) points in the group of locking plate combined with allogeneic fibula while it was (25.96±9.35) points in the simple plate group, and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.001) .In the respect of postoperative complications, 1 case in the group of locking plate combined with allogeneic fibula had wound infection 2 weeks after operation, and the patient achieved wound healing with positive disinfection and wound redressing. There were 3 cases of screw piercing in the simple locking plate group. Thereinto, 1 patient without obvious symptoms was given no treatment while the other 2 patients received secondary procedures to replace locking screws. Ischemic necrosis of humeral head occurred in 1 patient, which was type II of Cruss classification, and the patient was given conservative treatment.

Conclusion

Regarding the treatment of varus impacted proximal humeral head fractures, locking plate with allogeneic fibula can effectively increase the stability of fracture fragments, decrease the changes of neck-shaft angle, reduce the postoperative complication rate and improve the shoulder joint function. In addition, prospective randomized controlled trials are expected to further validate the relevant results.

表1 两组患者一般资料
图1 颈干角测量方法
表2 两组患者术后1年随访结果比较(±s
图2 患者男,32岁,高处坠落后右肩着地 图A、B为术前X线片及CT片提示内翻型肱骨近端骨折伴肩关节脱位,术中予以锁定钢板结合异体腓骨治疗;图C、D和E为术后1年的创伤系列位片,显示骨折愈合,各骨折块位置满意,经测量其术后1年随访时颈干角134.3°,肩关节功能Constant-Murley评分82分,DASH评分14分
[1]
Yang H, Li ZZ, Zhong F, et al. A prospective clinical study of proximal humerus fractures treated with a locking proximal humerus plate[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2011, 25(1): 11-17.
[2]
Helwig P, Bahrs C, Epple B, et al. Does fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis solve the problems of a fractured proximal humerus?A prospective series of 87 patients[J]. Acta Orthop, 2009, 80(1): 92-96.
[3]
Ricchetti ET, Warrender WJ, Abboud JA. Use of locking plates in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2010, 19(2 Suppl): 66-75.
[4]
吴晓明,蔡伟平,汪方,等.保守治疗肱骨近端外科颈骨折一例及文献回顾[J/CD].中华肩肘外科电子杂志,2014,2(1):45-49.
[5]
Clavert P, Adam P, Bevort A, et al. Pitfalls and complications with locking plate for proximal humerus fracture[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2010, 19(4): 489-494.
[6]
Schnetzke M, Bockmeyer J, Porschke F, et al. Quality of reduction influences outcome after Locked-Plate fixation of proximal humeral Type-C fractures[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2016, 98(21): 1777-1785.
[7]
Little MT, Berkes MB, Schottel PC, et al. The impact of preoperative coronal plane deformity on proximal humerus fixation with endosteal augmentation[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2014, 28(6): 338-347.
[8]
Gardner MJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL, et al. Indirect medial reduction and strut support of proximal humerus fractures using an endosteal implant[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2008, 22(3): 195-200.
[9]
Neviaser AS, Hettrich CM, Beamer BS, et al. Endosteal strut augment reduces complications associated with proximal humeral locking plates[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011, 469(12): 3300-3306.
[10]
Tan E, Lie D, Wong MK. Early outcomes of proximal humerus fracture fixation with locking plate and intramedullary fibular strut graft[J]. Orthopedics, 2014, 37(9): e822-e827.
[11]
Chen H, Ji X, Gao Y, et al. Comparison of intramedullary fibular allograft with locking compression plate versus shoulder hemi-arthroplasty for repair of osteoporotic four-part proximal humerus fracture: Consecutive, prospective, controlled, and comparative study[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2016, 102(3): 287-292.
[12]
Panchal K, Jeong JJ, Park SE, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unstable proximal humeral fractures treated with a locking plate and fibular strut allograft[J]. Int Orthop, 2016, 40(3): 569-577.
[13]
Chen H, Ji X, Zhang Q, et al. Clinical outcomes of allograft with locking compression plates for elderly four-part proximal humerus fractures[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2015, 10:114.
[14]
Resch H, Tauber M, Neviaser RJ, et al. Classification of proximal humeral fractures based on a pathomorphologic analysis[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2016, 25(3): 455-462.
[15]
Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, et al. Locked plating of 3-and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in older patients:the effect of initial fracture pattern on outcome[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2009, 23(2): 113-119.
[16]
Hardeman F, Bollars P, Donnelly M, et al. Predictive factors for functional outcome and failure in angular stable osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus[J]. Injury, 2012, 43(2): 153-158.
[17]
Chandrappa MH, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S. Postoperative outcomes of initial varus versus initial valgus proximal humerus fracture:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Orthop Trauma, 2017, 8(1): 14-20.
[18]
Mathison C, Chaudhary R, Beaupre L, et al. Biomechanical analysis of proximal humeral fixation using locking plate fixation with an intramedullary fibular allograft[J]. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2010, 25(7): 642-646.
[19]
Chow RM, Begum F, Beaupre LA, et al. Proximal humeral fracture fixation: locking plate construct +/- intramedullary fibular allograft[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2012, 21(7): 894-901.
[20]
Matassi F, Angeloni R, Carulli C, et al. Locking plate and fibular allograft augmentation in unstable fractures of proximal humerus[J]. Injury, 2012, 43(11): 1939-1942.
[21]
Siwach R, Singh R, Rohilla RK, et al. Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with locking proximal humeral plate(LPHP)in elderly patients with osteoporosis[J]. J Orthop Traumatol, 2008, 9(3): 149-153.
[22]
Hinds RM, Garner MR, Tran WH, et al. Geriatric proximal humeral fracture patients show similar clinical outcomes to non-geriatric patients after osteosynthesis with endosteal fibular strut allograft augmentation[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2015, 24(6): 889-896.
[23]
Zirngibl B, Biber R, Bail HJ. Humeral head necrosis after proximal humeral nailing: what are the reasons for bad outcomes?[J]. Injury, 2016, 47(7): S10-S13.
[1] 单磊, 周君琳. 同期修复肩袖撕裂结合锁定钢板治疗老年肱骨近端骨折的特点及疗效分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(03): 211-215.
[2] 乐佳迪, 蔡乐益, 陈思源, 鲁建鹏, 陈龙. 肱骨近端骨折经微创钢板接骨术治疗术后的放射学测量与肩关节功能关系[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 61-68.
[3] 代飞, 向明. 肱骨距螺钉在肱骨近端骨折治疗中的研究进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 373-376.
[4] 李明震, 韩勇, 路庆森, 王甫. 肱骨近端骨折中内侧锁定钢板重建内侧柱的有限元分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 321-329.
[5] 李立, 王红莉, 常红, 张艳. 肱骨近端骨折术后功能康复策略现状及新理念下的研究进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 284-287.
[6] 左楠, 刘岩, 孙大辉, 刘哲闻, 杨光. 胸大肌三角肌入路与经三角肌外侧入路治疗肱骨近端骨折的疗效分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 252-257.
[7] 宗宇宁, 薛海鹏, 韩天宇, 张昊, 王帅, 马翔宇, 纪振钢, 周大鹏. 解剖状骨水泥占位器在治疗内侧柱缺失型肱骨近端骨折中的实用性的有限元分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 242-251.
[8] 车娟, 刘俊阳. 肱骨近端骨折围手术期深静脉血栓发生因素分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 146-149.
[9] 张晓萌, 杨杰, 刘海, 王艳华, 张一翀, 张立佳, 熊晨, 唐缪田, 张殿英. 科研创新就在我们身边[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 1-6.
[10] 刘兵, 马翔宇, 杨超, 周大鹏. 应用Philos钢板联合个体化髓内解剖型骨水泥占位器治疗老年骨质疏松性肱骨近端骨折的临床疗效[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2022, 10(04): 293-299.
[11] 丁小方, 杨黎黎, 周海涛, 纪坤羽, 杨鹏杰, 杨坤, 吕昊润, 王元利, 付中国. 基于"悬臂-杠杆重建-不稳定"理论的老年肱骨近端粉碎骨折术后康复策略探讨[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2022, 10(03): 232-238.
[12] 程邦君, 黄燕峰, 罗轶, 何耀华. 两种手术方法治疗Neer Ⅲ型肱骨近端骨折的临床研究[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 335-340.
[13] 金万通, 薛海鹏, 周大鹏, 刘兵, 纪振钢, 马翔宇, 杨超, 张昊, 韩宁, 宗宇宁, 张咏晧, 马泽方. 3D打印结合PMMA骨水泥髓内支撑技术在老年肱骨近端骨质疏松性骨折中的应用[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2022, 08(05): 276-284.
[14] 杨良栋, 张华泽, 何举仁, 高艳刚, 李栋. 锁定钢板与交锁髓内钉固定治疗老年Neer分型2、3部分肱骨近端骨折的疗效比较[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2022, 08(02): 96-103.
[15] 赵阔, 王忠正, 王宇钏, 张浚哲, 郭家良, 郑占乐, 陈伟, 张英泽. 双反牵引复位器联合MIPO技术治疗肱骨近端骨折的初步应用[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2021, 07(06): 321-325.
阅读次数
全文


摘要