This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boyd, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Barnes, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boyd, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Barnes, C. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 74, Issue 10 1498-1504, Copyright © 1992 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Fractures adjacent to humeral prostheses

AD Boyd, TS Thornhill and CL Barnes
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

In a review of records and radiographs from 1974 through 1988, we identified seven patients who had a humeral fracture after either a total shoulder replacement or a shoulder hemiarthroplasty. All seven patients had complications after the fracture, and five fractures did not unite until an operation was done. All of the fractures that were treated operatively healed without sequelae. Four patients who were managed operatively had satisfactory relief of pain and one had fair relief. One patient who had a non-union refused further treatment for medical reasons. The one fracture that united without operative treatment healed with the tip of the prosthesis outside of the humeral shaft, but persistent pain led to a revision total shoulder replacement. The average time to union after the operation was approximately five months (range, four to seven months). There was a permanent decrease in the motion of the shoulder from preinjury levels in five of the six patients who had union of the fracture.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
S. P. Steinmann and E. V. Cheung
Treatment of Periprosthetic Humerus Fractures Associated With Shoulder Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., April 1, 2008; 16(4): 199 - 207.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
J. S. Dines, S. Fealy, E. J. Strauss, A. Allen, E. V. Craig, R. F. Warren, and D. M. Dines
Outcomes Analysis of Revision Total Shoulder Replacement
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2006; 88(7): 1494 - 1500.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
S. Kumar, J. W. Sperling, G. H. Haidukewych, and R. H. Cofield
Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures After Shoulder Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 2004; 86(4): 680 - 689.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
M. A. WIRTH and C. A. ROCKWOOD JR.
Current Concepts Review - Complications of Total Shoulder-Replacement Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 1996; 78(4): 603 - 16.
[Full Text]