MINIMALLY INVASIVE PLATE OSTEOSYNTHESIS SURGERY TREATMENT FOR PROXIMAL HUMERUS FRACTURE IN VIET DUC HOSPITA

Văn Phan Nguyễn , Văn Đạt Nguyễn , Mạnh Sơn Lê , Trọng Hùng Đỗ , Bình Minh Trần, Cao Tuấn Nguyễn , Đức Mạnh Đỗ

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To describe the clinical and X-ray characteristics of humeral head fractures, and the results of treatment with minimally invasive locking screw and bone fusion surgery (MIPO). Research subjects and methods: Retrospective and prospective description of 31 patients undergoing MIPO surgery from January 2020 to December 2023. The average follow-up period was 18 months. Results: 31 patients (19 men, 12 women) with an average age of 52.7 ± 18.1 (18- 84 years old). The main accident mechanisms were traffic accidents (16/31) and daily life accidents, falling and hitting the shoulder (10/31). The rate of A2 fracture is 51.6%, A3 is 9.7%, B1 is 35.5%, C1 is 3.2%. The average surgery time was 57.74±16.27 minutes. The average neck-trunk angle after 1-year follow-up was 135.9 ± 12.6º (97º- 154º). Assessing shoulder joint function according to the Constant-Muller scale: Patients with good and very good results account for 83.6%, average accounts for 16.1%, and no patient has poor results. There were no cases of bone nonunion, infection, screw penetration through the head, humeral head resorption, or axillary nerve paralysis. Conclusion: MIPO surgery can be applied as an effective and safe treatment method for proximal humerus fractures. However, longer intraoperative C-arm imaging time and difficulty in converting to open surgery, if correction fails are issues that need to be considered.

Article Details

References

1. Launonen AP, Lepola V, Flinkkilä T, et al. Conservative treatment, plate fixation, or prosthesis for proximal humeral fracture. A prospective randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:167. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-167
2. Launonen AP, Lepola V, Saranko A, Flinkkilä T, Laitinen M, Mattila VM. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:209. doi:10.1007/s11657-015-0209-4
3. The Extended Anterolateral Acromial Approach Allows Minimall...: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. Accessed April 28, 2023. https://journals. lww.com/clinorthop/Fulltext/2005/05000/The_Extended_Anterolateral_Acromial_Approach.18.aspx
4. Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The Importance of Medial Support in Locked Plating of Proximal Humerus Fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 2007; 21(3): 185. doi:10.1097/BOT. 0b013e3180333094
5. Gardner MJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The anterolateral acromial approach for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2008; 22(2): 132-137. doi:10.1097/BOT. 0b013e3181589f8c
6. Buchmann L, van Lieshout EMM, Zeelenberg M, et al. Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs): comparison of functional outcome 1 year after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(6):4553-4558. doi:10.1007/s00068-021-01733-w
7. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJH, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(2):355-361. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022
8. Kim YG, Park KH, Kim JW, et al. Is minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis superior to open plating for fixation of two-part fracture of the proximal humerus? J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019;27(2): 2309499019836156. doi:10.1177/ 2309499019836156