Comparison of the ALPS and PHILOS plating systems in proximal humeral fracture fixation - a retrospective study.
ALPS
Fracture fixation
Locking plate
PHILOS
Plate
Proximal humerus fracture
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 May 2023
10 May 2023
Historique:
received:
17
06
2022
accepted:
29
04
2023
medline:
12
5
2023
pubmed:
11
5
2023
entrez:
10
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Open reduction and plate osteosynthesis are considered as a successful technique for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite high complication rates. The objective of our study was to review the clinical outcome and complications of the Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) and compare it to the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS). Our hypothesis was that ranges of motion (ROM) were superior and complication rates were lower with ALPS. Twenty patients treated with ALPS for PHF were retrospectively compared to 27 patients treated with PHILOS. Union, ROM and complications were clinically and radiologically assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 18-24 months post-operatively. Mean age was 52 ± 14 in the ALPS group and 58 ± 13 in the PHILOS group. Last follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 20.6 ± 4.8 months. Mean shoulder abduction was superior with ALPS by 14° (p-value = 0.036), 15° (p-value = 0.049), and 15° (p-value = 0.049) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Mean shoulder external rotation was superior with ALPS by 11° (p-value = 0.032), 15° (p-value = 0.010) and 12° (p-value = 0.016) at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively. At the end of the follow-up, ROM remained better with ALPS, but not significantly. Complication rates over 21 months reached 20% with ALPS and 48% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.045). Implant removal rates reached 10% with ALPS and 37% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.036). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for hardware removal in the ALPS group. The ALPS group showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Open reduction and plate osteosynthesis are considered as a successful technique for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite high complication rates. The objective of our study was to review the clinical outcome and complications of the Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) and compare it to the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS). Our hypothesis was that ranges of motion (ROM) were superior and complication rates were lower with ALPS.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty patients treated with ALPS for PHF were retrospectively compared to 27 patients treated with PHILOS. Union, ROM and complications were clinically and radiologically assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 18-24 months post-operatively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean age was 52 ± 14 in the ALPS group and 58 ± 13 in the PHILOS group. Last follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 20.6 ± 4.8 months. Mean shoulder abduction was superior with ALPS by 14° (p-value = 0.036), 15° (p-value = 0.049), and 15° (p-value = 0.049) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Mean shoulder external rotation was superior with ALPS by 11° (p-value = 0.032), 15° (p-value = 0.010) and 12° (p-value = 0.016) at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively. At the end of the follow-up, ROM remained better with ALPS, but not significantly. Complication rates over 21 months reached 20% with ALPS and 48% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.045). Implant removal rates reached 10% with ALPS and 37% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.036). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for hardware removal in the ALPS group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The ALPS group showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37165381
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06477-9
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06477-9
pmc: PMC10170861
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
371Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Orthop Trauma. 2021 May 1;35(5):259-264
pubmed: 33165208
HSS J. 2011 Jul;7(2):164-9
pubmed: 22754418
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Dec 7;93(23):2172-9
pubmed: 22159852
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Mar;23(3):163-72
pubmed: 19516088
PLoS Med. 2019 Jul 18;16(7):e1002855
pubmed: 31318863
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170
pubmed: 29256945
Injury. 2018 Jun;49 Suppl 1:S33-S38
pubmed: 29929690
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jun;91(6):1320-8
pubmed: 19487508
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Oct 12;21(1):676
pubmed: 33046038
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Aug;127(6):441-7
pubmed: 17457598
Injury. 2009 Feb;40(2):186-91
pubmed: 19100544
Open Orthop J. 2018 Feb 28;12:53-58
pubmed: 29541270
Bone. 2004 Jun;34(6):1072-7
pubmed: 15193555
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Nov 2;98(21):1777-1785
pubmed: 27807109
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1090-103
pubmed: 5455340
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Aug;27(8):1526-1534
pubmed: 29735376
J Orthop Surg Res. 2011 Sep 24;6:50
pubmed: 21943090
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1):42-54
pubmed: 18308203
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Aug 30;14(1):285
pubmed: 31470878
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2009 Oct;3(4):85-9
pubmed: 20532009
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Oct;133(10):1385-93
pubmed: 23820852
Injury. 2019 Dec;50(12):2176-2195
pubmed: 31727401
Injury. 2018 Mar;49(3):624-629
pubmed: 29452734
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 28;15(1):364
pubmed: 32859221
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jul;20(5):747-55
pubmed: 21435907
J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Dec 19;7:39
pubmed: 23253302
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Jan 10;20(1):20
pubmed: 30630465
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Sep 07;13:167
pubmed: 22954329
J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Aug;28(8):452-7
pubmed: 24662994
Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Oct;74(5):580-5
pubmed: 14620980
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD000434
pubmed: 23235575
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016 Feb;32:108-12
pubmed: 26743868
J Orthop Sci. 2005 Sep;10(5):441-4
pubmed: 16193353
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Nov-Dec;18(6):837-44
pubmed: 19748802
Int Orthop. 2018 Mar;42(3):641-650
pubmed: 29119298
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 May 26;21(1):327
pubmed: 32456631
Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Aug;72(4):365-71
pubmed: 11580125
Injury. 2011 Apr;42(4):408-13
pubmed: 21176833
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013 Sep;110(35-36):591-7
pubmed: 24078839
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):e295-303
pubmed: 27079217
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jan;442:77-82
pubmed: 16394743
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1):21-8
pubmed: 17936024