Predictive value of valgus head-shaft angle in identifying Neer 4-part proximal humerus fractures. A radiographic and CT-scan analysis of 120 cases.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 05 2020
30 05 2020
Historique:
received:
05
05
2020
accepted:
05
05
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
9
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Understanding the fracture morphology and its relation to the expected outcome and risk of complications is fundamental for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) management. Most Neer 3- and 4-part fractures may deserve surgical treatment. Unfortunately, plain x-rays may not be able to differentiate between a 3- or 4-part fractures unless an axillary or analogue projection is carried out. Aim of the present study is to evaluate whether a high valgus head-shaft angle degree is predictive of a Neer 4-part rather than a 3-part fracture. The study included 120 3-(75 cases) and 4-(45 cases) part PHFs (valgus displaced in 98 cases), M:F ratio = 1:2.6, mean age 65.7 years, classified on CT scan images. The humeral head shaft angle was calculated on AP x-rays and statistically correlated with 3 and 4-part fractures to identify values predictive of 4-part fracture. Valgus head/shaft angle was significantly higher in 4-part fractures, especially in the valgus displaced group (p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 168.5° was identified as predictive of a 4-part fracture with a sensibility of 74% and specificity of 78%. Increasing by 1 degree the humeral head-shaft angle, the chance to have a 4-part fracture increases of 3% in the whole population and of 11% in the valgus sub-group. The severity of PHF can be predicted analysing valgus head shaft angle on AP x-rays with a sensibility of 74% and specificity of 78% in identifying a 4-part fracture with a cutoff value of 168.5°.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK
Understanding the fracture morphology and its relation to the expected outcome and risk of complications is fundamental for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) management. Most Neer 3- and 4-part fractures may deserve surgical treatment. Unfortunately, plain x-rays may not be able to differentiate between a 3- or 4-part fractures unless an axillary or analogue projection is carried out. Aim of the present study is to evaluate whether a high valgus head-shaft angle degree is predictive of a Neer 4-part rather than a 3-part fracture.
METHODS
The study included 120 3-(75 cases) and 4-(45 cases) part PHFs (valgus displaced in 98 cases), M:F ratio = 1:2.6, mean age 65.7 years, classified on CT scan images. The humeral head shaft angle was calculated on AP x-rays and statistically correlated with 3 and 4-part fractures to identify values predictive of 4-part fracture.
RESULTS
Valgus head/shaft angle was significantly higher in 4-part fractures, especially in the valgus displaced group (p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 168.5° was identified as predictive of a 4-part fracture with a sensibility of 74% and specificity of 78%. Increasing by 1 degree the humeral head-shaft angle, the chance to have a 4-part fracture increases of 3% in the whole population and of 11% in the valgus sub-group.
CONCLUSION
The severity of PHF can be predicted analysing valgus head shaft angle on AP x-rays with a sensibility of 74% and specificity of 78% in identifying a 4-part fracture with a cutoff value of 168.5°.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32555100
doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i4-S.9717
pmc: PMC7944809
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
217-223Références
J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Nov;36(11):1843-4
pubmed: 21925802
Orthopedics. 2017 Jul 1;40(4):e641-e647
pubmed: 28418573
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2013 Jul;7(3):105-9
pubmed: 24167402
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;13(4):427-33
pubmed: 15220884
Emerg Radiol. 2006 Jul;12(5):227-30
pubmed: 16688433
Int Orthop. 2009 Apr;33(2):323-7
pubmed: 18536918
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015 Mar;23(3):190-201
pubmed: 25630370
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1077-89
pubmed: 5455339
Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:209
pubmed: 25675881
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jan;93(1):1-11
pubmed: 21196536
Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Aug;72(4):365-71
pubmed: 11580125
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2):273-81
pubmed: 19836976
J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Oct;25(10):612-7
pubmed: 21654525
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Oct;19(7):1105-14
pubmed: 20846622
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2007 Dec;36(12 Suppl 1):9-14
pubmed: 18264551
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 May;84(4):504-8
pubmed: 12043768
Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2004;62(1-2):24-32
pubmed: 15517854
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD000434
pubmed: 23235575
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Sep;85(9):1647-55
pubmed: 12954821
J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Aug;21(7):469-76
pubmed: 17762478
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Mar;73(2):295-8
pubmed: 2005159
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;14(5):497-505
pubmed: 16194741
HSS J. 2015 Oct;11(3):192-7
pubmed: 26981052
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Aug;(168):24-30
pubmed: 7105548
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 May-Aug;27(2):2309499019848166
pubmed: 31104562