Locking Plate Use with or without Strut Support for Varus Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in Elderly Patients

Varus displaced fractures of the proximal part of the humerus, particularly in osteoporotic bone, commonly require open reduction and internal fixation. However, surgical treatment methods remain controversial and have shown inconsistent results. A fibular allograft for indirect medial reduction and strut support has been used in an effort to prevent secondary postoperative varus displacement. However, the long-term outcomes of this method require confirmation. We hypothesized that placing a fibular strut parallel to the calcar screw could increase the biomechanical stability of the medial hinge, thus preventing secondary varus deformity. In the present study, we compared the clinical outcomes of locking plate use with and without medial strut support with use of a fibular allograft for the treatment of varus humeral fractures in patients ≥65 years old.

We compared 2 different graft techniques involving the use of fibular allografts in elderly patients with varus displaced proximal humeral fractures who underwent open reduction and internal fixation. The patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) the intramedullary graft group (Group A), (2) the medial hinge support group (Group B), and (3) the locking plate alone group (Group C). Clinical outcomes included the final varus angulation of the humeral head, the occurrence of major complications (screw cut-out or cut-through or osteonecrosis), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at 1 year after treatment.

A total of 128 patients were included in our study. The final varus angles were 14.7°, 13.1°, and 18.6°, for the intramedullary graft group, the medial hinge support group, and locking plate alone group, respectively. The mean ASES scores were 87.2, 88.6, and 82.2, respectively. There were differences in ASES scores between Group A and Group C as well as also between Group B and Group C. Fewer major complications were found in patients managed with locking plates in combination with intramedullary graft or medial hinge support (Group A and Group B) than in patients managed with locking plates alone (Group C).

The use of a locking plate in combination with medial strut support with use of a fibular allograft reduced complications when used for the treatment of varus displaced proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients in comparison with the use of a locking plate alone.

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.