External Fixation in the Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Retrospective Single-Center Case Series

Purpose: The treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) remains debated, and similar fracture patterns may be managed with different strategies. The aim of this retrospective single-center case series without a control group was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes after treatment of selected PHFs with the Galaxy Fixation System. The primary endpoint was functional recovery at 12 months, assessed using the Constant Shoulder Score and QuickDASH. Secondary endpoints included radiographic maintenance of reduction, quality of life, treatment-related complications, and need for revision surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 48 consecutive patients with proximal humeral fractures treated at the Orthopaedic and Traumatology Unit of Versilia Hospital, Viareggio, Italy, between November 2017 and February 2022. Fractures were assessed using trauma-series radiographs and computed tomography when required, and were classified by two senior surgeons according to the Neer, AO/OTA, and Hertel classifications. Eligible patterns included 2-part, 3-part, and selected 4-part fractures with at least two-thirds of intact metaphyseal bone stock. Results: Forty-six patients completed the 12-month follow-up; two patients died during follow-up from causes unrelated to the index procedure. The mean Constant Shoulder Score improved from 62.7 at 6 months to 69.3 at 12 months, and the mean QuickDASH improved from 9.4 to 8.1. The mean postoperative head-shaft angle was 137.2 degrees and remained substantially stable at 135.1 degrees at 12 months. Pin-tract infection occurred in 5 patients, pin migration in 4, algodystrophic syndrome in 1, and avascular necrosis requiring revision arthroplasty in 1. Conclusions: In this retrospective uncontrolled series, external fixation with the Galaxy system was associated with progressive functional recovery, satisfactory radiographic maintenance of reduction, and a low rate of revision surgery in carefully selected PHFs. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the retrospective design, limited sample size, absence of a control group, incomplete availability of some baseline variables, and lack of formal comparative or cost-effectiveness analyses.