Acute reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus internal fixation for 3- and 4- part proximal humerus fractures: A propensity matched analysis of 5466 elderly patients

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Margaret A. Sinkler, Andrew J. Moyal, Jeremy M. Adelstein, Robert J. Burkhart, Raymond Chen, Robert J. Wetzel, George Ochenjele, John K. Sontich, Jacob G. Calcei, Joshua K. Napora
{"title":"Acute reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus internal fixation for 3- and 4- part proximal humerus fractures: A propensity matched analysis of 5466 elderly patients","authors":"Margaret A. Sinkler,&nbsp;Andrew J. Moyal,&nbsp;Jeremy M. Adelstein,&nbsp;Robert J. Burkhart,&nbsp;Raymond Chen,&nbsp;Robert J. Wetzel,&nbsp;George Ochenjele,&nbsp;John K. Sontich,&nbsp;Jacob G. Calcei,&nbsp;Joshua K. Napora","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2025.112624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to utilize a large national database to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of acute management of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) compared to open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The TriNetX platform was utilized to perform a retrospective review of patients who sustained PHFs treated within three weeks of injury. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and the International Classification of Disease diagnosis codes. The cohorts were 1:1 propensity matched. Patients who received RSA were propensity matched to patients who underwent ORIF. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared across the cohorts across various post operative periods. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was used to analyze implant survival rate and Cox hazard ratio was used to identify risk factors of re-operation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Following propensity matching, each cohort included 2733 patients with an average age of 71±9.5. Patients treated with ORIF were more likely to have a re-operation or hospital admission than patients who underwent RSA at both 1 and 2 year follow up (5.5 % vs 2.1 %; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001; 6.9 % vs 2.6 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001 and 13.7 % vs 11.3 %, <em>p</em> = 0.01; 19.6 % vs 16.4 %, <em>p</em> = 0.003). At two year follow up, 173 patients treated with ORIF had a re-operation of which 60 (35 %) were converted to arthroplasty. On Kaplan Meier survival analysis for re-operation, both implants had satisfactory survival rates at both one and two year time point with survival rates over 90 %. However, there was a difference between survival rates at both one and two years between the ORIF and RSA groups (94 % vs 98 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001; 91 % vs 97 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001). For ORIF, patients with four part PHF and osteoporosis had a 39 % and 19 % increased risk of re-operation (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001; <em>p</em> = 0.03).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While both ORIF and RSA have been shown to be acceptable techniques for managing PHFs in the elderly, ORIF had a significantly higher re-operation and hospital readmission rate at mid- and long-term follow up. Additionally, a large portion of patients undergoing re-operation following ORIF were converted to shoulder arthroplasty although acute RSA has superior outcomes compared to delayed RSA. Therefore, for operative elderly candidates we advocate for the use of RSA in three- and four-part PHFs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"56 10","pages":"Article 112624"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002013832500484X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to utilize a large national database to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of acute management of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) compared to open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).

Methods

The TriNetX platform was utilized to perform a retrospective review of patients who sustained PHFs treated within three weeks of injury. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and the International Classification of Disease diagnosis codes. The cohorts were 1:1 propensity matched. Patients who received RSA were propensity matched to patients who underwent ORIF. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared across the cohorts across various post operative periods. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was used to analyze implant survival rate and Cox hazard ratio was used to identify risk factors of re-operation.

Results

Following propensity matching, each cohort included 2733 patients with an average age of 71±9.5. Patients treated with ORIF were more likely to have a re-operation or hospital admission than patients who underwent RSA at both 1 and 2 year follow up (5.5 % vs 2.1 %; p < 0.001; 6.9 % vs 2.6 %, p < 0.001 and 13.7 % vs 11.3 %, p = 0.01; 19.6 % vs 16.4 %, p = 0.003). At two year follow up, 173 patients treated with ORIF had a re-operation of which 60 (35 %) were converted to arthroplasty. On Kaplan Meier survival analysis for re-operation, both implants had satisfactory survival rates at both one and two year time point with survival rates over 90 %. However, there was a difference between survival rates at both one and two years between the ORIF and RSA groups (94 % vs 98 %, p < 0.0001; 91 % vs 97 %, p < 0.0001). For ORIF, patients with four part PHF and osteoporosis had a 39 % and 19 % increased risk of re-operation (p < 0.001; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

While both ORIF and RSA have been shown to be acceptable techniques for managing PHFs in the elderly, ORIF had a significantly higher re-operation and hospital readmission rate at mid- and long-term follow up. Additionally, a large portion of patients undergoing re-operation following ORIF were converted to shoulder arthroplasty although acute RSA has superior outcomes compared to delayed RSA. Therefore, for operative elderly candidates we advocate for the use of RSA in three- and four-part PHFs.
急性反向全肩关节置换术与内固定治疗肱骨近端3段和4段骨折:5466例老年患者的倾向匹配分析
本研究的目的是利用一个大型的国家数据库来评估采用反向全肩关节置换术(RSA)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗肱骨近端骨折(PHF)的短期和长期疗效。方法利用TriNetX平台对损伤后三周内持续治疗的phf患者进行回顾性分析。使用现行程序术语代码和国际疾病诊断分类代码对患者进行识别。这些队列是1:1的倾向匹配。接受RSA的患者与接受ORIF的患者倾向匹配。在不同的术后时期比较各组的短期和长期结果。Kaplan Meier生存分析分析种植体存活率,Cox风险比分析再次手术的危险因素。结果倾向匹配后,每个队列纳入2733例患者,平均年龄为71±9.5岁。在1年和2年随访中,接受ORIF治疗的患者比接受RSA治疗的患者更有可能再次手术或住院(5.5% vs 2.1%;p & lt;0.001;6.9% vs 2.6%, p <;0.001和13.7% vs 11.3%, p = 0.01;19.6% vs 16.4%, p = 0.003)。在两年的随访中,173例接受ORIF治疗的患者再次手术,其中60例(35%)转为关节置换术。Kaplan Meier生存分析显示,两种植入物在1年和2年时间点的生存率均为90%以上,令人满意。然而,ORIF组和RSA组的1年和2年生存率存在差异(94% vs 98%, p <;0.0001;91% vs 97%, p <;0.0001)。对于ORIF,患有四部分PHF和骨质疏松症的患者再手术风险分别增加39%和19% (p <;0.001;P = 0.03)。结论虽然ORIF和RSA都是治疗老年phf的可接受技术,但在中长期随访中,ORIF的再手术率和再入院率明显较高。此外,很大一部分在ORIF后再次手术的患者转为肩关节置换术,尽管急性RSA与延迟RSA相比具有更好的结果。因此,对于老年手术候选人,我们提倡在三部分和四部分phf中使用RSA。
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
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信