One Versus 3-Week Immobilization Period for Nonoperatively Treated Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Trial.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Casts, Surgical
/ statistics & numerical data
Conservative Treatment
/ instrumentation
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pain
/ diagnosis
Pain Management
/ instrumentation
Pain Measurement
/ statistics & numerical data
Prospective Studies
Recovery of Function
Shoulder Fractures
/ complications
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
ISSN: 1535-1386
Titre abrégé: J Bone Joint Surg Am
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0014030
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 08 2021
18 08 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
8
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no consensus on the duration of immobilization for nonoperatively treated proximal humeral fractures (PHFs). The main objective of the study was to determine the differences in pain between PHFs that were treated nonoperatively with 3-week immobilization and those treated with 1-week immobilization. A prospective randomized trial was designed to evaluate whether the immobilization time frame (1-week immobilization [group I] versus 3-week immobilization [group II]) for nonoperatively treated PHFs had any influence on pain and functional outcomes. Pain was assessed using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) that was administrated 1 week after the fracture, at 3 weeks, and then at the 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. The functional outcome was evaluated using the Constant score. To assess the functional disability of the shoulder, a self-reported shoulder-specific questionnaire, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), was used. The Constant score and the SST were recorded at the 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. Complications and secondary displacement were also recorded. One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized, and 111 (88 females and 23 males) who had been allocated to group I (55 patients) or group II (56 patients) were included in the final analysis. The mean age of the patients was 70.4 years (range, 42 to 94 years). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of pain as measured with the VAS at any time point (1 week [5.9 versus 5.6; p = 0.648], 3 weeks [4.8 versus 4.1; p = 0.059], 3 months [1.9 versus 2.4; p = 0.372], 6 months [1.0 versus 1.2; p = 0.605], 1 year [0.65 versus 0.66; p = 0.718], and 2 years [0.63 versus 0.31; p = 0.381]). No significant differences were found in the Constant score or SST score at any time point. No significant differences were noted in the complication rate. Short and long periods of immobilization yield similar results for nonoperatively treated PHFs, independent of the fracture pattern. These fractures can be successfully managed with a short immobilization period of 1 week in order to not compromise patients' independence for an overly extended period. Randomized controlled trial Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is no consensus on the duration of immobilization for nonoperatively treated proximal humeral fractures (PHFs). The main objective of the study was to determine the differences in pain between PHFs that were treated nonoperatively with 3-week immobilization and those treated with 1-week immobilization.
METHODS
A prospective randomized trial was designed to evaluate whether the immobilization time frame (1-week immobilization [group I] versus 3-week immobilization [group II]) for nonoperatively treated PHFs had any influence on pain and functional outcomes. Pain was assessed using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) that was administrated 1 week after the fracture, at 3 weeks, and then at the 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. The functional outcome was evaluated using the Constant score. To assess the functional disability of the shoulder, a self-reported shoulder-specific questionnaire, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), was used. The Constant score and the SST were recorded at the 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. Complications and secondary displacement were also recorded.
RESULTS
One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized, and 111 (88 females and 23 males) who had been allocated to group I (55 patients) or group II (56 patients) were included in the final analysis. The mean age of the patients was 70.4 years (range, 42 to 94 years). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of pain as measured with the VAS at any time point (1 week [5.9 versus 5.6; p = 0.648], 3 weeks [4.8 versus 4.1; p = 0.059], 3 months [1.9 versus 2.4; p = 0.372], 6 months [1.0 versus 1.2; p = 0.605], 1 year [0.65 versus 0.66; p = 0.718], and 2 years [0.63 versus 0.31; p = 0.381]). No significant differences were found in the Constant score or SST score at any time point. No significant differences were noted in the complication rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Short and long periods of immobilization yield similar results for nonoperatively treated PHFs, independent of the fracture pattern. These fractures can be successfully managed with a short immobilization period of 1 week in order to not compromise patients' independence for an overly extended period.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Randomized controlled trial Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34101691
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.02137
pii: 00004623-202108180-00004
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1491-1498Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G536).
Références
Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):691-7. Epub 2006 Jun 30.
Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jan;442(442):87-92.
Chu SP, Kelsey JL, Keegan THM, Sternfeld B, Prill M, Quesenberry CP, Sidney S. Risk factors for proximal humerus fracture. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 15;160(4):360-7.
McLean AS, Price N, Graves S, Hatton A, Taylor FJ. Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Nov;28(11):2072-8. Epub 2019 Aug 14.
Okike K, Lee OC, Makanji H, Harris MB, Vrahas MS. Factors associated with the decision for operative versus non-operative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. Injury. 2013 Apr;44(4):448-55. Epub 2012 Sep 27.
Petit CJ, Millett PJ, Endres NK, Diller D, Harris MB, Warner JJ. Management of proximal humeral fractures: surgeons don’t agree. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Apr;19(3):446-51. Epub 2009 Oct 2.
Hageman MGJS, Jayakumar P, King JD, Guitton TG, Doornberg JN, Ring D; Science of Variation Group. The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jan;24(1):e21-6. Epub 2014 Aug 29.
Bell JE, Leung BC, Spratt KF, Koval KJ, Weinstein JD, Goodman DC, Tosteson AN. Trends and variation in incidence, surgical treatment, and repeat surgery of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jan 19;93(2):121-31.
Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ. Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1):42-54.
Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, Jefferson L, Keding A, Martin BC, Goodchild L, Chuang LH, Hewitt C, Torgerson D; PROFHER Trial Collaborators. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015 Mar 10;313(10):1037-47.
Handoll HH, Keding A, Corbacho B, Brealey SD, Hewitt C, Rangan A. Five-year follow-up results of the PROFHER trial comparing operative and non-operative treatment of adults with a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus. Bone Joint J. 2017 Mar;99-B(3):383-92.
Handoll HH, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 11;11(11):CD000434.
Lopiz Y, Alcobía-Díaz B, Galán-Olleros M, García-Fernández C, Picado AL, Marco F. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment for 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Dec;28(12):2259-71. Epub 2019 Sep 6.
Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J. Hemiarthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1025-33. Epub 2011 Jul 23.
Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J. Internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jul;20(5):747-55. Epub 2011 Mar 24.
van den Broek CM, van den Besselaar M, Coenen JMF, Vegt PA. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: intramedullary nailing versus conservative treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Aug;127(6):459-63. Epub 2006 Nov 15.
Ilchmann T, Ochsner PE, Wingstrand H, Jonsson K, IIchmann T. Non-operative treatment versus tension-band osteosynthesis in three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures. A retrospective study of 34 fractures from two different trauma centers. Int Orthop. 1998;22(5):316-20.
Lefevre-Colau MM, Babinet A, Fayad F, Fermanian J, Anract P, Roren A, Kansao J, Revel M, Poiraudeau S. Immediate mobilization compared with conventional immobilization for the impacted nonoperatively treated proximal humeral fracture. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Dec;89(12):2582-90.
Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4.
Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S, Briggs K, Kocher M. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3):260-7. Epub 2006 Dec 22.
Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1077-89.
Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD, Bowen RC, McAllister J, Chen W, Ebersole G, Granger EK, Chamberlain AM. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jan;26(1):144-8. Epub 2016 Aug 18.
Dabija DI, Jain NB. Minimal clinically important difference of shoulder outcome measures and diagnoses: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Aug;98(8):671-6.
Torrens C, Corrales M, Vilà G, Santana F, Cáceres E. Functional and quality-of-life results of displaced and nondisplaced proximal humeral fractures treated conservatively. J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Oct;25(10):581-7.
Soler-Peiro M, García-Martínez L, Aguilella L, Perez-Bermejo M. Conservative treatment of 3-part and 4-part proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 24;15(1):347.
Kristiansen B, Angermann P, Larsen TK. Functional results following fractures of the proximal humerus. A controlled clinical study comparing two periods of immobilization. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989;108(6):339-41.