Surgical Treatment of Humerus Fracture-Dislocations: Medium-Term Results

Cover Page

Cite item


Background. Fracture-dislocation of the proximal humerus is a severe injury that equally affects both young and old people. Such injuries are often accompanied by the high risk of neurocirculatory and other complications, which defines their great medical and social importance. The purposes of this study were: 1) to compare the mid-term results of the surgical treatment of the patients with dislocation-fractures of the proximal humerus when they were managed according to the standard algorithm or the new one developed by the authors of this study; 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed protocol in relation to the patients with neurological complications in order to elaborate a universal approach to the optimal treatment tactics. Patients and Methods. The treatment results of 73 patients with proximal humerus fracture-dislocation undergone the surgery from 2012 to 2018. The patients were divided into 2 groups, which were managed according to the traditional (control group) or the new algorithms (main group), differing in the time of the surgery, a set of diagnostic methods, and an approach to the prevention and treatment of complications. The patients’ examination included taking patients’ anamnesis, their physical examination, X-rays and multispiral computed tomography of the injured shoulder, electromyoneurography, ultrasound of the upper limb blood vessels, patients’ questioning. Results. A year after the surgery, a statistically significant difference in the functional results was revealed in the patients of the main and control groups by the Constant Shoulder Score (p = 0.0063). In the control group, there was a statistically significant difference of the functional results by Constant Shoulder Score between the patients with and without neurological complications (p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference among such patients in the main group (p = 0.387). Conclusion. The main group patients, including those with neurological complications, achieved higher functional results in comparison with the control group. Thus, the authors’ treatment algorithm showed its effectiveness. The surgery within 6 hours from the moment of admission of the patients with humerus fracture-dislocation, as well as the earliest possible diagnosis of neurological injury and treatment of complications significantly improved the prognosis and outcome the main group patients.

About the authors

K. A. Egiazaryan

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6680-9334

Karen A. Egiazaryan — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Military Field Surgery Chair


Russian Federation

A. P. Ratyev

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; City Clinical Hospital No.1

Author for correspondence.
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6559-4263

Andrei P. Ratyev — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor of Chair of traumatology, Orthopedics and Military Surgery, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Orthopedic Surgeon, City Clinical Hospital No.1


Russian Federation

D. S. Ershov

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; City Clinical Hospital No.1

ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7005-2752

Dmitrii S. Ershov — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor of Chair of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Military Surgery, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Orthopedic Surgeon, City Clinical Hospital No.1


Russian Federation

E. A. Kuruch

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Podolsk City Clinical Hospital

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8522-8623

Evgenii A. Kuruch — PhD Student of Chair of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Military Surgery, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow; Orthopedic Surgeon, Podolsk City Clinical Hospital

Moscow; Podolsk

Russian Federation

V. N. Kuznetsov

Podolsk City Clinical Hospital

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7429-0704

Vadim N. Kuznetsov — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Chief of Trauma and Orthopedics Unit


Russian Federation

N. V. Ovcharenko

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4447-0445

Nina V. Ovcharenko — PhD Student


Russian Federation


  1. Baron J.A., Barrett J.A., Karagas M.R. The epidemiology of peripheral fractures. Bone. 1996;18(suppl):209-213. doi: 10.1016/8756-3282(95)00504-8.
  2. Kwon Y.W., Zuckerman J.D. Outcome after treatment of proximal humeral fractures with humeral head replacement. Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:363-369.
  3. Краснов А.Ф., Ахмедзянов Р.Б. Вывихи плеча. Москва: Медицина; 1982. c. 160.
  4. Shen L., Jiang C., An Z. Open reduction through a posterior incision in the surgical treatment of shoulder posterior dislocation associated with proximal humeral fractures. ANZ J Surg. 2019; 89(4):334-338. doi: 10.1111/ans.15147.
  5. Court-Brown C.M., Garg A., McQueen M.M. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(4):365-371.
  6. Chun J.M., Groh G.I., Rockwood C.A.Jr. Two-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;(5):273-287. doi: 10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80071-2.
  7. Bigliani L.U. Fractures of the proximal humerus. In: Rockwood C.A., Matsen F.A. (eds). The shoulder, 2 nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia; 1998. p. 278-334.
  8. Duparc J., Largier A. Les luxations-fractures de l’extrémité supérieure de l’humérus [Fracture-dislocations of the upper end of the humerus]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1976;62(1):91-110. (In French).
  9. Neer C.S. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: I. Classification and evolution. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:1077-1089.
  10. Filippo C., Davide B., Marco A. Simple and Complex Fractures of the Humerus. Springer-Verlag Mailand; 2015; p. 177-179. doi: 10.1007/978-88-470-5307-6.
  11. Robinson C.M., Akhtar A., Mitchell M., Beavis C. Complex posterior fracture – dislocations of the shoulder. Epidemiology, injury patterns, and results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1454-1466.
  12. Visser C.P., Coene L.N., Brand R., Tavy D.L. The incidence of nerve injury in anterior dislocation of the shoulder and its influence on functional recovery. A prospective clinical and EMG study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(4):679-685. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.81b4.9005.
  13. Visser C.P., Coene L.N., Brand R., Tavy D.L. Nerve lesions in proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):421-427. doi: 10.1067/mse.2001.118002.
  14. Hems T.E., Mahmood F. Injuries of the terminal branches of the infraclavicular brachial plexus: patterns of injury, management and outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(6):799-804. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B6.28286
  15. Fric V., Pazdírek P., Bartonícek J. Nepredvrtané zajistĕné nitrodrenové hrebování zlomenin humeru--základní hodnocení souboru [Unreamed locking intramedullary nailing of humeral fractures--basic evaluation of a patient group]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2001;68(6):345-356. (In Czech).
  16. Wijgman A.J., Roolker W., Patt T.W., Raaymakers E.L., Marti R.K. Open reduction and internal fixation of three and four-part fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(11):1919-1925.
  17. Sun J.C., Li Y.L., Ning G.Z., Wu Q., Feng S.Q. Treatment of three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures with locking proximal humerus plate. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(6):699-704. doi: 10.1007/s00590-012-1040-x.
  18. Conboy V.B., Morris R.W., Kiss J., Carr A.J. An evaluation of the constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):229-232.
  19. Hirschmann M.T., Wind B., Amsler F., Gross T. Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the ConstantMurley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):15651571. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1007-3.
  20. Park T.S., Choi I.Y., Kim Y. Park M.R., Shon J.H., Kim S.I. A new suggestion for the treatment of minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1997;56(3):171-176.
  21. Resch H., Thoni H. [Dislocation fractures of the shoulder. Special status and therapeutic concepts]. Orthopade. 1992;21(2):131-139. (In German).
  22. Ackermann C., Lam Q., Linder P., Kull C., Regazzoni P. [Problems in classification of fractures of the proximal humerus]. Z Unfallchir Versicherungsmed Berufskr. 1986;79:209-215. (In German).
  23. Shrader M.W., Sanchez–Sotelo J., Sperling J.W., Rowland C.M., Cofield R.H. Understanding proximal humerus fractures: image analysis, classification, and treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:497-505. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.014.
  24. Hertel R., Hempfing A., Stiehler M., Leunig M. Predictors of humeral head ishemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:427-433.
  25. Gerber C., Schneeberger A.G., Vinh T.S. The arterial vascularization of the humeral head. An anatomical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1486-1494.
  26. Meyer C., Alt V., Hassanin H. Heiss C., Stahl J.P., Giebel G. et al. The arteries of the humeral head and their relevance in fracture treatment. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27:232-237. doi: 10.1007/s00276-005-0318-7.
  27. Auffarth A., Mayer M., Kofler B., Hitzl W., Bogner R., Moroder P. et al. The interobserver reliability in diagnosing osseous lesions after first – time anterior shoulder dislocation comparting plain radiographs with computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1507-1513. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.04.020.
  28. Russo R., Cautiero F., Della Rotonda G. The classification of complex 4-part fracture revisited: the missing fifth fragment and indication for surgery. Musculoskelet Surg. 2012;96(suppl 1):S13-19. doi: 10.1007/s12306-012-0195-2.
  29. Гюльназарова С.В., Мамаев В.И., Зубарева Т.В. Осложнения при эндопротезировании плечевого сустава у пациентов с застарелыми переломами и переломовывихами проксимального отдела плечевой кости. Гений ортопедии. 2016;(1):48-51.
  30. Gasbarro G., Crasto J.A., Rocha J., Henry S., Kano D., Tarkin I.S. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Geriatric Proximal Humerus Fracture Dislocation With Concomitant Nerve Injury. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2019;10:2151459319855318. doi: 10.1177/2151459319855318.
  31. Lopiz Y., Garcıa-Coiradas J., Serrano-Mateo L., GarcıaFernandezdez C., Marco F. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures in the geriatric patient: results, health-related quality of life and complication rates. Int Orthop. 2016;40:771-781. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-3085-z.
  32. Day J.S., Scott Paxton E., Lau E., Gordon V.A., Abboud J.A., Williams G.R. Use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:766-772. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.023.
  33. Menendez M.E., Ring D., Heng M. Proximal humerus fracture with injury to the axillary artery: a population-based study. Injury. 2015;46:1367-1371. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.026.
  34. Cotman S.J., Trinh T.Q., Vincent S., Backes J.R. Proximal Humerus Fracture-Dislocation with Laceration of the Axillary Artery: A Case Report. Iowa Orthop J. 2017;37:53-55.
  35. Wronka K.S., Ved A., Mohanty K. When is it safe to reduce fracture dislocation of shoulder under sedation? Proposed treatment algorithm. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(3):335-340. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1899-z.

Copyright (c)

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 82474 от 10.12.2021.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies