切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肩肘外科电子杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (02) : 139 -145. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5790.2023.02.008

论著

大结节解剖钢板与PHILOS内固定治疗伴肩关节脱位的Mutch I/II型肱骨大结节骨折的疗效差异
张琳袁, 吴佳俊, 崔煦, 沈超, 付备刚, 崔崟, 王秀会, 蔡攀()   
  1. 201318 上海健康医学院附属周浦医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-15 出版日期:2023-05-05
  • 通信作者: 蔡攀
  • 基金资助:
    浦东新区卫生健康委员会卫生计生科研项目(PW2022A-42); 浦东新区卫健委临床特色学科项目(PWYts2021-03)

Efficacy difference between APGT and PHILOS fixation for Mutch I/II greater tuberosity fractures with shoulder dislocations

Linyuan Zhang, Jiajun Wu, Xu Cui, Chao Shen, Beigang Fu, Yin Cui, Xiuhui Wang, Pan Cai()   

  1. Department of Orthopaedics,Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences Affiliated Zhoupu Hospital, Shanghai 201318, China
  • Received:2022-09-15 Published:2023-05-05
  • Corresponding author: Pan Cai
引用本文:

张琳袁, 吴佳俊, 崔煦, 沈超, 付备刚, 崔崟, 王秀会, 蔡攀. 大结节解剖钢板与PHILOS内固定治疗伴肩关节脱位的Mutch I/II型肱骨大结节骨折的疗效差异[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 139-145.

Linyuan Zhang, Jiajun Wu, Xu Cui, Chao Shen, Beigang Fu, Yin Cui, Xiuhui Wang, Pan Cai. Efficacy difference between APGT and PHILOS fixation for Mutch I/II greater tuberosity fractures with shoulder dislocations[J]. Chinese Journal of Shoulder and Elbow(Electronic Edition), 2023, 11(02): 139-145.

目的

探讨大结节解剖钢板(anatomical plate of the greater tuberosity,APGT)与肱骨近端锁定接骨板系统(proximal humeral internal locking system,PHILOS)内固定治疗伴肩关节脱位的孤立性Mutch I/II型肱骨大结节骨折的疗效差异。

方法

纳入自2015年6月至2021年6月在本院行手术治疗的伴肩关节脱位的孤立性Mutch I/II型肱骨大结节骨折患者49例。依骨折内固定方式分为PHILOS组与APGT组,PHILOS组17例,男6例、女11例,平均年龄(61.53±8.38)岁;APGT组32例,男17例、女15例,平均年龄(56.69±12.96)岁。记录患者一般资料,比较手术切口长度、术中出血量、手术时间、骨折愈合时间,记录骨折愈合情况及并发症,术后1、3个月及末次随访采用Constant-Murlery评分评估肩关节功能,视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评估肩关节活动时疼痛情况。

结果

所有患者手术顺利,APGT组平均手术时间(55.29±8.75)min、术中平均出血量(53.24±10.15)ml、切口长度(6.71±0.92)cm;PHILOS组平均手术时间(77.19±10.23)min、术中平均出血量(71.56±13.53)ml、切口长度(10.19±1.36)cm;两组均存在差异,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PHILOS组平均随访时间(25.79±10.33)个月,APGT组(21.18±9.97)个月,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访过程中骨折均愈合,两组愈合时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。无伤口感染、骨折不愈合等并发症。术后1、3个月APGT组Constant-Murlery评分均优于PHILOS组(P<0.05),末次随访两组Constant-Murlery评分及VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。APGT组出现肩关节僵硬1例,术后肩袖损伤1例;PHILOS组出现肩峰撞击2例,两组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

PHILOS与APGT内固定治疗伴肩关节脱位的肱骨大结节骨折均可取得良好效果,两种内固定方式术后并发症无明显差异,APGT手术创伤小、手术时间短,早期功能恢复更佳。

Background

Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) account for approximately 5% of total fractures and isolated greater tuberosity fractures (IGTF) account for 20% of all PHFs. IGTF is associated with rotator cuff traction, glenoid impingement, and 10% to 30% of shoulder dislocations combined with greater tuberosity fractures. The fracture fragment of the greater tuberosity is displaced backward and upward by the traction of the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor, resulting in the narrowed subacromial space, the increased rotator cuff lever arm, the limited abductor of the shoulder joint and the chronic shoulder pain and discomfort, which seriously affect the function of the affected shoulder. Currently, it is generally accepted that greater tuberous bone mass displacement larger than 5mm is an indication of surgery. Although the arthroscopic anchor fixation and suture bridge technology in the fixation of greater tuberous fracture has gradually increased in recent years, its shortcomings, such as high technical threshold and narrow indications, are still limited in its widespread application. The traditional open reduction, proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) fixation, and anatomical plate of the greater tuberosity (APGT) fixation are still the mainstream methods. Isolated humeral greater tuberosity fracture with shoulder joint dislocation is rarely reported in previous literature.

Objective

To investigate the difference in the therapeutic effect between the APGT and the PHILOS internal fixation for Mutch type I/II isolated humerus greater tuberosity fractures with shoulder dislocations.

Methods

From June 2015 to June 2021, 49 patients with Mutch type I/II isolated humeral greater tuberosity fractures with shoulder dislocations who underwent surgical treatment in our hospital were enrolled. They were divided into the PHILOS and APGT groups according to the internal fixation method. There were 17 cases in the PHILOS group, including 6 males and 11 females, with an average age of (61.53±8.38) years. There were 32 cases in the APGT group, including 17 males and 15 females, with an average age of (56.69±12.96) years. The general data of the patients were recorded, and the length of the surgical incision, intraoperative blood loss, and operating time were compared. The bone healing time and complications were recorded. The Constant-Murley score was used to evaluate the shoulder joint function in the 1st month, 3rd month, and the last follow-up and the VAS score was used to assess the pain during joint movement.

Results

All patients underwent successful operations. The average operation time in the APGT group was (55.29±8.75) min, the average intraoperative blood loss was (53.24±10.15) ml, and the incision length was (6.71±0.92) cm. The average operation time in the PHILOS group was (77.19±10.23) min, average intraoperative blood loss (71.56±13.53) ml, and incision length (10.19±1.36) cm. The two groups had statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The average follow-up time was (25.79±10.33) months in the PHILOS group and (21.18±9.97) months in the APGT group without statistical significance (P>0.05). All fractures healed during the follow-up, and the two groups had no statistical difference in healing time (P>0.05). There were no complications, such as wound infection and nonunion of fractures. The Constant-Murley score of the APGT group was better than that of the PHILOS in the 1st month and 3rd months after the operation (P<0.05). There were one shoulder stiffness and one postoperative rotator cuff injury in the APGT group. Two cases of acromial impingement occurred in the PHILOS group, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05) .

Conclusion

Both PHILOS and APGT internal fixations can achieve good results in treating the humeral greater tuberosity fractures with shoulder dislocations. There is no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two internal fixation methods. The APGT fixation has less trauma, shorter operation time, and better early functional recovery.

表1 两组患者基本资料比较
表2 两组患者手术相关指标与功能随访比较(±s
图1 典型病例1:患者,男性,76岁,左肩关节前脱位伴肱骨大结节骨折,急诊复位后行PHILOS内固定 图A-C:术前X线、冠状位及三维重建;图D:术中透视图;图E-F:术后正位、冠状位及三维重建;图H:术后1年肱骨正位X线
图2 典型病例2:患者,女性,53岁,左肩关节前脱位伴肱骨大结节骨折,复位后行大结节解剖钢板内固定 图A-C:术前X线、冠状位及三维重建;图D:术中透视图;图E-F:术后正位、冠状位及三维重建;图H:术后1年肱骨正位X线
图3 典型病例2患者术后1年肩关节功能 图A:外展;图B:外旋;图C:内旋;图D:后伸
[1]
White EA, Skalski MR, Patel DB, et al. Isolated greater tuberosity fractures of the proximal humerus: anatomy, injury patterns, multimodality imaging, and approach to management[J]. Emerg Radiol201825(3):235-246.
[2]
Passaretti D, Candela V, Sessa P, et al. Epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures: a detailed survey of 711 patients in a metropolitan area[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg201726(12):2117-2124.
[3]
Mattyasovszky SG, Burkhart KJ, Ahlers C, et al. Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus: a long-term retrospective study of 30 patients[J]. Acta Orthop201182(6):714-720.
[4]
Singh R, Kanodia N, Singh H. Outcome following olecranon osteotomy versus paratricipital approach for complex intra-articular (AO 13-C) fracture of distal humerus: a prospective comparative study[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg201928(4):742-750.
[5]
Park SE, Jeong JJ, Panchal K, et al. Arthroscopic-assisted plate fixation for displaced large-sized comminuted greater tuberosity fractures of proximal humerus: a novel surgical technique[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc201624(12):3892-3898.
[6]
张少战, 黄长明, 傅仰攀, 等. 双排锚钉桥式缝合在肱骨大结节骨折中的应用[J/CD ]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2014,2(2):80-84.
[7]
Lee SU, Jeong C, Park IJ. Arthroscopic fixation of displaced greater tuberosity fracture of the proximal humerus[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2012,20(2):378-380.
[8]
Lin X, Huang X, Fang K, et al. Arthroscopic fixation of humeral greater tuberosity fracture using a W-shaped suture[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2020,15(1):554.
[9]
Mutch J, Laflamme G, Hagemeister N, et al. A new morphological classification for greater tuberosity fractures of the proximal humerus: validation and clinical implications[J]. Bone Joint J,2014,(5):646-651.
[10]
Turner NM, van de Leemput AJ, Draaisma JM, et al. Validity of the visual analogue scale as an instrument to measure self-efficacy in resuscitation skills[J]. Med Educ,2008,42(5):503-511.
[11]
Razaeian S, Hawi N, Zhang D, et al. Conservative treatment of displaced isolated proximal humerus greater tuberosity fractures: preliminary results of a prospective, CT-based registry study[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2020, 48(6):4531-4543.
[12]
Bockmann B, Lechler P, Boese CK, et al. Risk factors for secondary displacement in conservatively treated isolated greater tuberosity fractures: An analysis of 82 cases[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res,2019,105(2):317-322.
[13]
Bono CM, Renard R, Levine RG, et al. Effect of displacement of fractures of the greater tuberosity on the mechanics of the shoulder[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2001,83(7):1056-1062.
[14]
Gruson KI, Ruchelsman DE, Tejwani NC. Isolated tuberosity fractures of the proximal humeral: current concepts[J]. Injury, 2008,39(3):284-298.
[15]
Wright JO, Ho A, Kalma J, et al. Uncemented Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty as Initial Treatment for Comminuted Proximal Humerus Fractures[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2019,33(7):e263-e269.
[16]
Yoon TH, Choi CH, Choi YR, et al. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive open reduction and internal fixation by screw and washer for displaced greater tuberosity fracture of the humerus[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2018,27(6):e173-e177.
[17]
章伟, 陈云丰, 宋文奇, 等. 三种不同内固定方式对肱骨大结节骨折稳定性的影响[J]. 医用生物力学, 2013,28(6):636-641.
[18]
张德刚, 孙建云, 王兆林, 等. 三种植入物固定劈裂型肱骨大结节骨折的生物力学分析[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2019,23(36):5806-5810.
[19]
Sun Q, Ge W, Li G, et al. Plate Fixation versus Arthroscopic-Assisted Plate Fixation for Isolated Medium-Sized Fractures of the Greater Tuberosity: A Retrospective Study[J]. Orthop Surg,2020,12(5):1456-1463.
[20]
张东, 薛锋, 肖海军. 低切迹锁定小钢板微创治疗肩关节脱位伴肱骨大结节骨折临床疗效[J]. 国际骨科学杂志, 2017,38(2):125-128.
[21]
桂琦, 张亚奎, 张星火, 等. 关节镜缝合桥技术与微型钢板螺钉内固定治疗肱骨大结节撕脱骨折的疗效比较[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2019,21(2):109-115.
[22]
马骏, 付强, 叶添文, 等. 微型锁定钢板治疗肱骨大结节骨折[J/CD]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2015,3(3):156-159.
[23]
邵佳佳, 李迎全, 许功效. 关节镜下双排锚钉缝合桥技术治疗单纯肱骨大结节撕脱骨折的疗效分析[J]. 临床外科杂志,2021,29(3):282-286.
[24]
Harmer LS, Crickard CV, Phelps KD, et al. Surgical Approaches to the Proximal Humerus: A Quantitative Comparison of the Deltopectoral Approach and the Anterolateral Acromial Approach[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev, 2018,2(6):e017.
[25]
Shaw L, Hong CK, Kuan FC, et al. The incidence of occult and missed surgical neck fractures in patients with isolated greater tuberosity fracture of the proximal humerus[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2019,20(1):482.
[26]
Abhinav G, Sivaraman B, Matthew N, et al. A contribution to the calculation of a safe deltoid split[J]. Int J Shoulder Surg,2008,2(3):52-55.
[1] 齐伟亚, 方杰, 吴衡, 刘波. 掌侧小切口联合腕关节镜治疗AO-C型桡骨远端骨折[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 577-582.
[2] 张华, 孙宇, 乡世健, 李樱媚, 王小群. 循环肿瘤细胞预测晚期胃肠癌患者化疗药物敏感性的研究[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 422-425.
[3] 廖玥, 王可, 秦江月, 吴艳秋, 陈俊, 汪涛, 文富强, 王浩. 丹龙口服液治疗轻中度慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期的多中心及前瞻性研究[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 306-311.
[4] 刘有才, 张义君, 赵欣磊, 周家玄. Endobutton带袢钛板与钩钢板治疗肩锁关节脱位病例的疗效比较[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 212-217.
[5] 黄瑶, 袁滨, 束昊, 王磊, 孙鲁宁. 关节镜下带线锚钉修补术治疗Ⅴ型SLAP损伤临床观察[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 218-223.
[6] 金宇杰, 虞宵, 周晓强, 李志强, 徐人杰, 张向鑫, 陈广祥. 动力交叉钉系统治疗股骨颈骨折其内固定位置与临床疗效的相关性研究[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 193-200.
[7] 赵清斌, 殷剑, 肖伟, 孙俊刚, 周文正. 异体皮质骨板结合髂骨植骨辅助钢板治疗肱骨干骨折骨不连的短期临床疗效[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 152-156.
[8] 梁文龙, 曹杰, 黄庆, 林泳, 黄红丽, 杨平, 李冠炜, 胡鹤. 信迪利单抗联合瑞戈非尼治疗晚期结直肠癌的疗效与安全性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 409-413.
[9] 姜里蛟, 张峰, 周玉萍. 多学科诊疗模式救治老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道大出血患者的临床观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 520-524.
[10] 张景旭, 李德舫, 由上可, 张玉田. 贝伐珠单抗与安罗替尼联合奥沙利铂治疗晚期直肠癌的临床疗效[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 289-293.
[11] 盛静, 梅勇, 夏佩, 王晓林. 乌苯美司联合伊立替康二线治疗晚期胃癌的临床研究[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 317-321.
[12] 董骏, 吴芳芳. mFOLFOX6与FOLFOX4化疗方案治疗直肠癌的临床疗效及安全性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 236-240.
[13] 赵军, 李超杰, 李佳. 雷贝拉唑联合康复新液对治疗幽门螺杆菌阳性的十二指肠溃疡的疗效[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 254-258.
[14] 于晓东, 李德华, 高山, 徐鑫. 理中汤加味联合美沙拉嗪治疗轻度活动期克罗恩病的临床观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 199-202.
[15] 李莹倩, 李华山. 基于真实世界的完全性直肠脱垂治疗方式评价[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 700-705.
阅读次数
全文


摘要