Open reduction and internal fixation of displaced head-split type humeral fractures and role of the rotator-interval approach

Abstract

Background

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of humeral head split fractures is challenging because of high instability and limited visibility. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the extend of the approach through the rotator interval (RI) on the reduction quality and functional outcome.

Methods

37 patients (mean age: 59 ± 16 years,16 female) treated by ORIF through a standard deltopectoral (DP) approach were evaluated. The follow-up period was at least two years. In 17 cases, the approach was extended through the RI. Evaluation was based on radiographs, Constant scores (CS) and DASH scores.

Results

In group DP, “anatomic” reduction was achieved in 9 cases (45%), “acceptable” in 5 cases (25%), and “malreduced” in 6 cases (30%). In group RI, “anatomic” reduction was seen in 12 cases (71%), “acceptable” in 5 cases (29%), and “malreduced” in none (p = 0.04). In the DP group, the CS was 60.2 ± 16.2 and the %CS was 63.9 ± 22.3, while in the RI group, the CS was 74.5 ± 17.4 and the %CS was 79.1 ± 24.1 (p = 0.07, p = 0.08). DASH score was 22.8 ± 19.5 in DP compared to RI: 25.2 ± 20.6 (p = 0.53).

Conclusions

The RI approach improves visualization as it enhances quality of fracture reduction, however functional outcomes may not differ significantly.

Type of study and level of proof

Retrospective, level III

Keywords

humerus fracture head-split osteosynthesis avascular necrosis constant-score

Background

Proximal humeral fractures account for 5-10% of all fractures.^1,2 Although the incidence is high, especially in the elderly population, it is controversial what is the best treatment.^3,4 While non-displaced fractures can be treated conservatively, for displaced fractures, particularly in younger patients, operative treatment remains an option.^4–7 Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the most frequently performed procedure in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures,^3,5,6,8 however, in complex fracture patterns, such as head-split fractures, some authors suggest primary anatomic or reverse arthroplasty, due to considerably high complication rates of up to 50%.^4,5,8

Split type fractures of the humeral head are believed to be challenging fractures in terms of accurate fracture reduction, fracture healing and the risk of avascular necrosis.^4,9 The head-split fragment is often shallow, offering limited opportunity for internal fixation.¹⁰ As a consequence, it may be difficult to achieve anatomic reduction, particularly due to limited visibility of the articular surface.⁹ Nevertheless, anatomic reduction is believed to be an important factor for the fracture to heal and in order to prevent avascular necrosis of the humeral head.¹¹ One option to improve visibility and potentially increase the quality of fracture reduction may be by limited extension through the rotator interval (RI), between the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendon. However, its impact on the quality of reduction in head-split type fractures is unreported.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction in humeral head-split type fractures treated by ORIF, utilized by additional visualization through a RI approach, in comparison to fractures that were reduced through a standard DP approach only. We hypothesized, that additional exposure may help to improve the quality of fracture reduction. In addition, we aimed to compare surgical approaches with regards to fracture union, fixation failure and avascular necrosis, as well as functional outcomes.

Patients and methods

Study cohort

This retrospective study was approved by the local ethical review committee (156-12), planned and conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki. Patient data and records of all head-split type proximal humerus fractures, that were treated by ORIF between November 2006 and December 2017, were retrieved. Fractures were assessed by standard anteroposterior and lateral-view x-rays as well as 2D and 3D computer tomography (CT) scans in all cases. We defined a true head-split type proximal humeral fracture as a fracture within the humeral head cartilage according to the early description by Charles Neer.¹⁰ Therefore, fractures were excluded, that were not characterized by a displaced (>5 mm) true split of the humeral head >5 mm within the cartilage (Figure 1). Furthermore, all fracture dislocations were excluded as these injuries represent a different entity, as were pathologic fractures due to neoplasms. All head-split fractures were treated by locked plating within five days from trauma by four different surgeons. The RI approach was performed upon the surgeons` personal preference for visualization of the fracture. Patients were followed until clinical and radiographic union had occurred, or for a minimum of two years. 47 patients were included according to the above criteria, two patients died, and eight were lost to follow-up. Data of 37 patients (16 female, mean age: 59 ± 16 years (range 26 to 72) with a true head-split type proximal humeral fracture were evaluated. All head-split fractures were classified according to the criteria described by Scheibel et al.¹² The mean fracture displacement from CT-scans was 8.4 ± 0.9 mm. A summary of the baseline characteristics is given in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Ct images of patients with headsplit fractures included in the study: dislocated (>5 mm) fractures (arrows) located >5 mm within the cartilaginous articular surface. Left, 3D reconstruction of a CT scan; right, a coronal slice.

Table 1.

Summary of the patients` baseline characteristics.

	DP (deltopectoral) n = 20	RI (rotator interval) n = 17	p value
AGE (YR)	59.1 ± 13.4	58.7 ± 15.1	0.36
SEX (% FEMALE)	9 (56%)	7 (44%)	0.41
SMOKING (YES)	4 (20%)	5 (29%)	0.74
MEAN ASA	2.3 ± 0.7	2.2 ± 0.5	0.87
FRACTURE TYPE (SCHEIBEL¹²)			0.60
I	7 (35%)	7 (41%)
II	8 (40%)	7 (41%)
III	3 (15%)	3 (18%)
IV	2 (10%)	0
DISPLACEMENT IN MM	7.6 ± 0.7	9.3 ± 1.2	0.34
QUALITY OF REDUCTION			0.04
“ANATOMIC”	9 (45%)	12 (71%)
“ACCEPTABLE”	5 (25%)	5 (29%)
“MALREDUCED”	6 (30%)	0 (0%)
CONSTANT SCORE	60.2 ± 16.2	74.5 ± 17.4	0.07
CONSTANT SCORE %	63.9 ± 22.3	79.1 ± 24.1	0.08
DASH SCORE	25.2 ± 20.6	22.8 ± 19.5	0.53
SEC. DISPL. / NON-UNION	1 (5%)	1 (6%)	1.00
AVN	4 (20%)	3 (18%)	0.71

ASA: American Society of Anaesthesiologists; AVN: avascular necrosis; MM: millimeters; Sec. Displ.: secondary displacement; YR: Years.

Surgical procedure

The surgery was performed with the patient in beach chair position on a fracture table. Every patient received prophylactic intravenous antibiotics (Cefuroxime^®) 1,5g single-shot and general anesthesia in combination with an interscalene block for pain control.

Deltopectoral only vs. Rotator interval approach

In 20 cases the fracture was reduced and fixed through a standard deltopectoral approach only (DP). In five of these 20 cases a fracture of the major tubercle was followed into a longitudinal split of the supraspinatus tendon. In comparison, in 17 cases, a supplementary rotator interval approach (RI) was established between the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendon in order to improve visualization and utilize for fracture reduction (Figure 2). The biceps tendon was then cut at the supraglenoid tubercle and a biceps tenodesis was performed to the pectoralis major tendon-muscle junction.

Figure 2.

Establishing the rotator interval approach

Fracture fixation

In all cases, a proximal humeral interlocking plate system (PHILOS^®, DePuy Synthes, Johnson & Johnson Medical, Raynham, Massachusetts, USA) was used with solid fixation by angular stable screws as previously reported [5,8]. In six cases autogenic bone grafts and in four cases allogenic bone grafts were used to fill defects within the humeral head. In six cases synthetic bone substitutes were used as a void filler and in another two cases bone cement was used around screw tips to increase fixation strength. Use of augmentation was evenly distributed between groups. The rotator cuff was evaluated for rotator cuff tears and tuberosity sutures (FiberWire No. 5; Arthrex, Naples, Florida (FL), USA) were used when necessary. In twenty-two cases, additional interfragmentary screws were inserted from anterior to posterior in order to increase stability by compression of the major fragment to the remaining humeral head. The post-surgical rehabilitation protocol allowed passive and active-assisted rehabilitation exercises followed by active exercises with full range of motion as reported in prior studies.^5,8

Radiographic evaluation

Postoperative radiographs included standard anteroposterior and lateral-view x-rays. Quality of fracture reduction was defined according to Schnetzke et al.¹¹ By these criteria, a minor varus head-shaft alignment of <120° to 110° or a minor displacement of the greater tuberosity ( ≤ 5 mm) was considered an “acceptable” result of fracture reduction. A head-shaft alignment of <110° or >150° or a displacement of >5 mm was rated as “malreduction”. According to the quantitative determination of fracture reduction, patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: overall “anatomical” fracture reduction (achievement of all 3 parameters of anatomical reduction), “acceptable” fracture reduction (achievement of 1 to 3 parameters of acceptable fracture reduction with no parameter of malreduction), and “malreduced” fracture (1 to 3 parameters of malreduction).¹¹ Radiographs were used to determine complications such as secondary displacement, non-union and avascular head necrosis at every follow-up visit.

Follow-up and outcome measures

Outcome measures included the Constant score (CS) for the injured and contralateral shoulder as well as the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. The Constant score was accomplished as a raw value and in percentage to the uninjured side (%CS).

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were described using means and standard deviation. Results were compared depending on the surgical approach (DP vs. RI) using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and the chi2-Test was performed for comparison of dichotomous variables between groups. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 for all testing. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22 (SPSS Inc.).

Results

28 (76%) of 37 fractures united. Two patients had a nonunion and seven patients developed avascular necrosis (AVN) of the humeral head. In 21 cases (57%) the reduction was “anatomic”, in 10 cases (27%) “acceptable” and in 6 cases (16%) the fracture was rated “malreduced”. All fractures that were reduced “anatomically” and 7 fractures of which were reduced “acceptably” healed (p = 0.47). All fractures that were “malreduced” and 3 cases that were reduced “acceptably” developed secondary displacement, non-union or avascular necrosis. There were no infections or wound complications.

In patients where the head-split fracture was addressed through the deltopectoral approach only (DP), “anatomic” reduction was achieved in 9 cases (45%). In 5 cases (25%) the quality of reduction was “acceptable” and in 6 cases (30%) the fracture was “malreduced”. In comparison, by utilizing the rotator interval approach (RI) in 12 cases (71%) an “anatomic” reduction was achieved. In 5 cases (29%) the reduction was “acceptable”, while there was no case of a “malreduced” fracture (p = 0.04, table 1).

The overall mean Constant-score was 68.4 ± 18.2 and the Constant-score% was 71.1 ± 24.5. In patients with an “anatomic” or “acceptable” reduction, the CS was 72.4 ± 18.2 and the Constant-score% was 76.3 ± 22.4, while in patients with “malreduction” the CS was 61.5 ± 15.1 and the Constant-score% was 64.3 ± 21.4 (p = 0.69). In patients of group DP the CS was 60.2 ± 16.2 and the Constant-score% was 63.9 ± 22.3, while in patients of group RI the CS was 74.5 ± 17.4 and the Constant-score% was 79.1 ± 24.1 (p = 0.07, p = 0.08). The DASH-score was DP: 22.8 ± 19.5 compared to RI: 25.2 ± 20.6 (p = 0.53).

Secondary displacement, non-union and avascular necrosis were evenly distributed between the groups (p = 0.71, p = 1, Table 1) and were treated by anatomic hemi-endoprosthesis in two cases and reversed shoulder arthroplasty in five cases, while in two cases hardware removal without humeral head replacement was obtained.

Discussion

This study describes the outcomes following ORIF of head-split type humeral fractures in a larger cohort of patients. Though it can be difficult to achieve anatomic reduction of head-split fractures, the results indicate that anatomic reduction allows for fracture healing and provides satisfying functional outcomes. To facilitate anatomic fracture reduction, the RI approach may be seen as a supplementary option to increase visualization and ensure accurate fracture reduction in a displaced head-split type humeral fracture.

Fixation with humeral locking plate systems has resulted in high union rates and satisfying clinical results.^{5,6,8,9,13,14} Nevertheless, ORIF of humeral head-split type fractures can be technically challenging due to displacement of the fragments, distracting forces of the rotator cuff and limited visibility of the articular surface.^5,9,15 As a result of our frustration we began to establish a supplementary RI approach, between the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendon in order to facilitate for anatomic reduction, especially the articular surface of the humeral head.

We believe that the union rate of 74% is comparable to reports in the literature for these problematic fractures, despite the routine use of an additional RI approach.^13,14,16 Although many have discouraged the use of ORIF with locking plate systems for head-split type fractures because of a fear of humeral head necrosis,^9,17,18 the results in our series demonstrate, when applied in a biologically friendly manner, reduction can be achieved anatomically without adversely affecting bony healing. It is plausible that the excellent osseous apposition provided by the increased visualization outweigh the risks of the additional soft-tissue trauma. In general, visualization may also be improved when extending deep dissection longitudinally in line with the supraspinatus tendon fibres at the level of the head-split fracture site.¹⁸ However, injury to the important anterolateral vascular branch of the anterior circumflex artery must be avoided by any means, as it may increase the risk of avascular necrosis of the humeral head. Therefore, we recommend opening the RI along the biceps tendon sheath not lower than the subscapularis insertion to prevent injury to the ascending artery.^19,20 Biceps tendon management (i.e. tenotomy, tenodesis) appears to be important when considering opening of the RI for fracture reduction. Takedown of the biceps tendon may further improve visualization.²¹ However, from this study one may not conclude on the necessity of biceps tendon management overall.

The high rate of anatomic reduction in this series is noteworthy but not surprising given the fact that the fractures were reduced under direct visualization and then fixed by locking plate systems. Although standardized fluoroscopic visualization in perpendicular planes is recommended,⁸ it is our believe that direct visualization is specifically helpful when aiming for anatomic reduction in head-split-type fractures. This is also shown by the fact that despite greater dislocation of the fracture, none of the fractures in the RI group were classified as “malreduced” postoperatively.

The comparison of the functional results between the groups does not show a statistical significance with regard to the Constant score, however, a tendency towards significance at a p = 0.07 is indeed apparent. Overall, the results of the Constant score evaluation in the RI group are conclusive with the scores reported in the literature, tending to be even slightly better. The DASH shows higher scores in both groups than in comparable studies.^5,6

The weaknesses of this study include its retrospective nature. Additionally, information on operative time and blood loss was not available in sufficient detail to allow for comparison between standard deltopectoral approach only and supplementary RI approach. However, when dissection is conducted with respect to anatomical structures, we believe, that extension into the rotator-interval results in little blood loss and can be performed quickly for the benefits of a better visualization in the treatment of head-split type fractures.

Conclusions

ORIF of head-split type humeral fractures remains challenging. However, the results of this study indicate, when anatomic reduction is achieved, fracture healing and functional outcomes are satisfying. Dissection through the RI may be used to improve visualization of head-split type fractures, as it increases the quality of fracture reduction, without increasing the risk of avascular necrosis. The results of this study also show, that utilizing this approach, functional outcomes are higher, however, not significant.

Footnotes

List of abbreviations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (156-12).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

E. Fleischhacker

References

Kim

Szabo

Marder

. Epidemiology of humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide emergency department sample, 2008. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64: 407–414.

Palvanen

Kannus

Niemi

, et al. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 442: 87–92.

Nho

Brophy

Barker

, et al. Management of proximal humeral fractures based on current literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 : 44–58.

Ockert

Biermann

Haasters

, et al. [Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for primary fracture treatment. Displaced three and four part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly patient]. Unfallchirurg 2013; 116: 684–690.

Sudkamp

Bayer

Hepp

, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1320–1328.

Solberg

Moon

Franco

, et al. Surgical treatment of three and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1689–1697.

Tepass

Blumenstock

Weise

, et al. Current strategies for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of a survey carried out at 348 hospitals in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: e8–14.

Ockert

Siebenburger

Kettler

, et al. Long-term functional outcomes (median 10 years) after locked plating for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 1223–1231.

Jost

Spross

Grehn

, et al. Locking plate fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus: analysis of complications, revision strategies and outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 542–549.

10.

Neer

, 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970; 52: 1077–1089.

11.

Schnetzke

Bockmeyer

Porschke

, et al. Quality of reduction influences outcome after locked-plate fixation of proximal humeral type-C fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98: 1777–1785.

12.

Scheibel M

Moro

Moroder

. Head-split fractures of the proximal humerus. Obere Extremität 2019; 14: 93–102.

13.

Siebenburger

Van Delden

Helfen

, et al. Timing of surgery for open reduction and internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures. Injury 2015; 46 : S58–S62.

14.

Helfen

Siebenburger

Mayer

, et al. Operative treatment of 2-part surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus (AO 11-A3) in the elderly: cement augmented locking plate Philos vs. proximal humerus nail MultiLoc(R). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 48.

15.

Hardeman

Bollars

Donnelly

, et al. Predictive factors for functional outcome and failure in angular stable osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus. Injury 2012; 43: 153–158.

16.

Agudelo

Schurmann

Stahel

, et al. Analysis of efficacy and failure in proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plates. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21: 676–681.

17.

Beeres

FJP

Hallensleben

NDL

Rhemrev

, et al. Plate fixation of the proximal humerus: an international multicentre comparative study of postoperative complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137: 1685–1692.

18.

Jaeger

MLF

Wilson

. Proximal humerus 11-C3.3 Open reduction; plate fixation, https://www2.aofoundation.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/a1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOKN_A0M3D2DDbz9_UMMDRyDXQ3dw9wMDAwCTYEKIvEocDQnTr8BDuBoQEh_QW5oKABaevup/dl5/d5/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SmlFL1o2XzJPMDBHSVMwS09PVDEwQVNFMUdWRjAwMFE1/?approach=&bone=Humerus&classification=11-C3.3&implantstype=&method=Open%20reduction%3B%20plate%20fixation&redfix_url=&segment=Proximal&showPage=redfix&treatment=operative (2011, accessed 04/03/2018 2018).

19.

Hettrich

Boraiah

Dyke

, et al. Quantitative assessment of the vascularity of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 943–948.

20.

Brooks

Revell

Heatley

. Vascularity of the humeral head after proximal humeral fractures. An anatomical cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993; 75: 132–136.

21.

Corpus

Garcia

Liu

, et al. Long head of Biceps tendon management: a survey of the American shoulder and elbow surgeons. HSS J 2018; 14: 34–40.

22.

Edelson

Safuri

Salami

, et al. Natural history of complex fractures of the proximal humerus using a three-dimensional classification system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: 399–409.

23.

Edelson

Kelly

Vigder

, et al. A three-dimensional classification for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 413–425.