The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:594-603.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00439
© 2009 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activity for this article:
 Shoulder/Elbow Test 26: Spring 2009 (publication date May 15, 2009; expirat...
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Athwal, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Cofield, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Athwal, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Cofield, R. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Shoulder
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures During Shoulder Arthroplasty

George S. Athwal, MD, FRCSC1, John W. Sperling, MD, MBA2, Damian M. Rispoli, MD3 and Robert H. Cofield, MD2

1 Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, University of Western Ontario, 268 Grosvenor Street, Room D0-205, London, ON N6A 4L6, Canada. E-mail address: gathwal{at}uwo.ca
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905
3 Department of Orthopedics, Wilford Hall Medical Center, 59th Medical Wing, 2200 Bergquist Drive, Suite 1, Lackland AFB, TX 78236-9908

Investigation performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. One or more of the authors or a member of his or her immediate family received, in any one year, payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from commercial entities in excess of $10,000 (Biomet and Smith and Nephew) and less than $10,000 (Synthes). Also, commercial entities (Biomet, Stryker, and Smith and Nephew) paid or directed in any one year, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits in excess of $10,000 to a research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which one or more of the authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, is affiliated or associated.

Background: Currently, there is little information available on the treatment and outcome of intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures that occur during shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report on the incidence, treatment, and outcome of, as well as the risk factors for, intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures.

Methods: Between 1980 and 2002, forty-five intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures occurred during shoulder arthroplasty at our institution. Twenty-eight fractures occurred during primary total shoulder arthroplasty, three occurred during primary hemiarthroplasty, and fourteen occurred during revision arthroplasty. Nineteen fractures involved the greater tuberosity, sixteen involved the humeral shaft, six involved the metaphysis, three involved the greater tuberosity and the humeral shaft, and one involved both the greater and lesser tuberosities. All patients were followed for a minimum of two years. At the time of the latest follow-up, outcomes were assessed, radiographs were examined, and relative risks were calculated.

Results: Over the twenty-two-year study period, the rate of intraoperative humeral fractures at our institution was 1.5%. All fractures healed at a mean of seventeen weeks. In the primary arthroplasty group (thirty-one patients), range of motion and pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) at the time of follow-up. In the revision arthroplasty group (fourteen patients), range of motion remained unchanged whereas pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.005). Transient nerve injuries occurred in six patients. Four fractures displaced postoperatively and were then treated nonoperatively; all four healed. Significant relative risks for intraoperative fracture were female sex, revision surgery, and press-fit implants (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The data from the present study suggest that although intraoperative humeral fractures are associated with a high rate of healing, there was a substantial rate of associated complications, including transient nerve injuries and fracture displacement. Significant risk factors for intraoperative fractures include female sex, revision surgery, and press-fit humeral implants.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?