Comparative Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Proximal Humeral Fracture: Deltoid-Splitting versus Deltopectoral Approaches.

IF 0.7 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Advanced biomedical research Pub Date : 2025-03-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4103/abr.abr_457_23
Hasan Barati, Mojtaba Baroutkoub, Sohrab Salimi, Sina Afzal, Farzad Amouzadeh Omrani, Hamid Nikfarjam, Reza Tavakoli Darestani
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Proximal Humeral Fracture: Deltoid-Splitting versus Deltopectoral Approaches.","authors":"Hasan Barati, Mojtaba Baroutkoub, Sohrab Salimi, Sina Afzal, Farzad Amouzadeh Omrani, Hamid Nikfarjam, Reza Tavakoli Darestani","doi":"10.4103/abr.abr_457_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal humeral fractures (PHF) are common orthopedic injuries often associated with osteoporosis. Surgical approaches for PHF fixation, such as the deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting methods, have been a subject of debate. Additionally, patient satisfaction with these approaches has not been extensively studied among Iranian patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted on patients treated for PHF at a referral orthopedic center in Tehran, Iran, from 2019 to 2021. Two surgical techniques, deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting, were compared. Patient-reported outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction, including quality of life (SF-36), pain relief (VAS score), and shoulder function (Constant score), were assessed at six- and 12-month intervals postsurgery. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the differences between the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 148 patients, the majority were male (72.3%), 104 (70.3%) and 44 (29.7%) of patients were operated by deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting approaches, respectively. Patients' quality of life scored higher in the deltoid-splitting group both in six and one year following the surgical procedure; however, the observed differences did not reach statistical significance (<i>P</i> values 0.121 and 0.736, respectively). While there were slight variations in shoulder function and pain relief between the surgical approaches, none of these differences reached statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests that both deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting surgical approaches for PHF treatment offer comparable patient satisfaction and functional outcomes. Surgeons can consider their expertise and patient-specific factors when selecting the appropriate approach for PHF fixation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94292,"journal":{"name":"Advanced biomedical research","volume":"14 ","pages":"24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12039869/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced biomedical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/abr.abr_457_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Proximal humeral fractures (PHF) are common orthopedic injuries often associated with osteoporosis. Surgical approaches for PHF fixation, such as the deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting methods, have been a subject of debate. Additionally, patient satisfaction with these approaches has not been extensively studied among Iranian patients.

Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on patients treated for PHF at a referral orthopedic center in Tehran, Iran, from 2019 to 2021. Two surgical techniques, deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting, were compared. Patient-reported outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction, including quality of life (SF-36), pain relief (VAS score), and shoulder function (Constant score), were assessed at six- and 12-month intervals postsurgery. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the differences between the two approaches.

Results: Among 148 patients, the majority were male (72.3%), 104 (70.3%) and 44 (29.7%) of patients were operated by deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting approaches, respectively. Patients' quality of life scored higher in the deltoid-splitting group both in six and one year following the surgical procedure; however, the observed differences did not reach statistical significance (P values 0.121 and 0.736, respectively). While there were slight variations in shoulder function and pain relief between the surgical approaches, none of these differences reached statistical significance.

Conclusion: This study suggests that both deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting surgical approaches for PHF treatment offer comparable patient satisfaction and functional outcomes. Surgeons can consider their expertise and patient-specific factors when selecting the appropriate approach for PHF fixation.

肱骨近端骨折患者报告结果的比较评价:三角肌裂入路与三角胸肌裂入路。
背景:肱骨近端骨折(PHF)是常见的骨科损伤,常与骨质疏松症相关。PHF固定的手术入路,如三角胸肌和三角肌分离方法,一直是争论的主题。此外,患者对这些方法的满意度尚未在伊朗患者中进行广泛研究。材料和方法:对2019年至2021年在伊朗德黑兰一家转诊骨科中心接受PHF治疗的患者进行了一项横断面研究。比较两种手术方法,三角胸肌和三角肌分离。患者报告的患者满意度结果,包括生活质量(SF-36)、疼痛缓解(VAS评分)和肩部功能(常数评分),在术后6个月和12个月的间隔进行评估。进行统计分析以确定两种方法之间的差异。结果148例患者中,男性占多数(72.3%),分别有104例(70.3%)和44例(29.7%)采用胸三角入路和三角裂入路。三角肌分离组患者在手术后6年和1年的生活质量得分较高;但差异无统计学意义(P值分别为0.121和0.736)。虽然两种手术入路在肩关节功能和疼痛缓解方面存在细微差异,但这些差异均无统计学意义。结论:本研究表明,三角胸肌和三角肌分离手术入路治疗PHF可提供相当的患者满意度和功能结果。在选择合适的入路固定PHF时,外科医生可以考虑他们的专业知识和患者的具体因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信