Отправить письмо автору 
Написать комментарий 
RESULTS OF OSTEOSYNTHESIS OF PROXIMAL HUMERUS FRACTURES WITH INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL AND ADDITIONAL SUTURE FIXATION OF TUBEROSITIES
Egiazaryan K.A., Ratyev A.P., Tamazyan V.O., Glazkov K.I., Ershov D.S.
Pirogov Russian National
Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia
Reutov Central City Clinical Hospital, Reutov, Moscow
region, Russia
The proximal humerus fracture
(PHF) takes the third place in incidence in older people, and is exceeded in
abundance only by hip and distal radius fractures. Its incidence is only 4-5 %
of bone fractures of the whole body [1, 2]. It is widely thought that such
fractures are determined by osteoporosis and are mainly associated with
increasing number of injuries in older women with a fracture in the metaphyseal
zone [3]. The main cause of trauma is falling – 75 % of women in the postmenopausal
period [2]. From other side, PHFs are more often identified in the subgroup of
older persons with normal health and working capability [3].
In
comparison with two-fragmental fractures without displacement and good
prognosis after conservative treatment, the management of displaced fractures
is a disputable issue. Conservative treatment of these fractures can lead to
delayed union of the humerus, false joints, joint stiffness and posttraumatic
arthrosis, resulting in disability [5].
Various
fixators were offered for PHF, including pins, locked plates and intramedullary
nails. Although there is no best choice, most specialists agree that minimally
invasive intervention and adequate fixation are the main properties of any
internal fixing device [6].
Currently,
intramedullary fixation of proximal humerus is more common. It is related to
improvement in the technology, evolution of implants and better understanding
of shoulder joint anatomy. However errors and complications after use of nails
still exist [7].
Objective – to evaluate outcomes of surgical treatment of
patients with proximal humerus fractures with use of intramedullary locked
fixation, using the standard technique with closed reposition and with the
offered technique of semi-opened reposition and additional suture fixation of
tuberosities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in compliance with the
principles of World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles
for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2013, and the Rules for Clinical
Practice in the Russian Federation (the Order of Health Ministry of RF, 19 June
2003, No.266), with the written consent for participation in the study and
approval from the ethical committee of Pirogov Russian National
Research Medical University (the protocol 66, 19 February 2007).
There were two groups of patients with PHFs. The
patients were treated in the traumatology and orthopedics unit in Reutov Central City Clinical
Hospital in 2010-2017. The first group included 47 patients who received
intramedullary fixation with use of closed technique of introduction of the
nail. The second group included 42 patients who received the intramedullary
fixation with semi-opened technique of reposition and additional soft tissue
stabilization of humeral tuberosities.
The first group was estimated on the basis of
retrospective data for the period of 2010-2014. The treatment results one year
after surgery were examined in 35 patients among 47. Women prevailed (26 patients,
74.3 %), the mean age of 52.8 (22-79). As for patterns of fractures, the group
included only two-fragmental fractures at the level of surgical neck of the
humerus according to Neer classification. For this period, we did not make any
attempts of osteosynthesis of three- and four-fragmental fractures with use of
nails. The main feature of the group was a technique of osteosynthesis – the
standard technique of closed reposition of a fracture under control of electronic
optical converter (EOC) and antegrade introduction of the nail. The universal
humerus nail (UHN) without angle stability of locking screws was used in 7
cases. 28 patients received short nails of generation 1-2 with the curved
proximal part of the nail. The operations were conducted by different surgeons.
Based on the results in the group 1 and after
conclusions, we changed the management techniques for patients with PHF. In
2014, we refused from closed reposition in intramedullary fixation of PHF. We
started to use the semi-opened reposition with additional soft tissue
stabilization of humeral tuberosities for achievement of good results. Two invention
patents of RF were received (No.2673115
and No.2673146). Only nails of the second generation with the curved proximal
part and possibility for locking proximal screws were used for this technique.
In
the second group, the results were examined in 35 among 42 patients. There
were
more
women
(27 patients,
77.1 %). The mean age was
56.9 (23-70). According to fracture pattern, the group included two-fragmental
fractures at the level of surgical neck of the humerus – 7 patients (20 %),
three-fragmental (surgical neck and greater tubercle) – 24 patients (68.6 %),
four-fragmental – 4 patients (11.4 %) according to Neer. All surgical
interventions were conducted by the surgical team.
The
offered technique of semi-opened intramedullary fixation of PHF was realized as
described below. The anteriolateral approach is made [8]. A lineal incision
(5-6 cm) is made from the anteriolateral angle of acromion in parallel manner
to deltoid muscle fibers, not reaching the plane of the submuscular nerve. After
opening the deltoid muscle, the region of sulcus intertubercularis is visualized,
as well as the more distal part – the region of adherence of the greater
pectoral muscle tendon to the humerus diaphysis. Then, parallel to the CLB
tendon, the transverse humeral ligament and the interrotatory interval (joint
capsule) between the supraspinous muscle tendon and the subscapular muscle
tendon are dissected. This incision gives the approach to CLB tendon, which is
located in the sulcus intertubercularis. CLB tendon is sutured with
non-biodegradable sutures with two encircling stitches to the proximal border
of the greater pectoral muscle tendon (tenodesis) near the place of adherence
to the humerus for prevention of changes in biceps length. Then the curved
scissors are used for tenotomy of CLB tendon near the region of fixing to cavitas
glenoidalis scapulae. The free end of the tendon of CLB is dissected more
proximal than tenodesis by 0.5-1 cm. After dissection of the intracapsular part
of CLB tendon, reposition of humerus fragments simplifies, and a possibility
for visual and palpatory control of articular surface of the head in its fracture
appears. Then the tendons of supraspinal and infraspinous muscles are sutured
with two stitches over the distance of 1-1.5 cm from site of fixing to greater
tubercle of the humerus. Traction of stitches enables the manipulation with
fragments and reposition under control of EOC. Initially, lateral and distal
traction of sutures is realized from the tendons of supraspinous and
infraspinous muscles for reposition of greater tubercle. Traction of sutures
from the subscapular muscle tendon can control the rotation of the head along
the axis of the humerus. During traction of sutures and rotation of the humerus
head (depending on varus or valgus displacement) in the required direction, an
incision (1-1.5 cm) is made longwise the fibers of the supraspinous muscle
tendon. The incision provides the approach to the top of the humerus, where a
hole for introduction of the nail is made with the awl.
Despite
of the curved nail, we used the medial point of introduction of the nail, which
has some advantages: 1) preservation of the supraspinous muscle tendon; 2)
medial location of proximal part of the nail in the humerus head preserves the
higher amount of bone substance in the lateral part (“lateral bony bridge”),
with additional increasing ability to resist the varus shifting forces; 3) in
case of fractures affecting the great tubercle , a sudden introduction of the
nail into the fracture site can be prevented; 4) after correct introduction of
the nail, the proximal part can increase the stability of the construct, with
potential resistance to varus forces, and being so called “proximal anchor
point”; 5) if the enter point was chosen correctly, then balancing of the head
and diaphysis along the axis should happen automatically during introduction of
the nail.
Under
EOC control, the greater and lesser tubercles are fixed with proximal locking
screws, and the nail is fixed with the locked screw in the diaphysis. The
sutures, which are conducted through the tendons, are fixed to the heads of the
proximal screws. The sutures, which are conducted through the superspinous and
infraspinous muscles, are fixed to the screws in the site of greater tubercle.
The sutures, which are conducted through the subscapular muscle tendon, are
fixed to the screw, which is inserted through lesser tubercle. The ends of each
suture are fixed after figure-of-eight suture. Then the layer-by-layer suturing
of the wound is carried out, and the sutures are applied onto the skin.
The
operated extremity is fixed onto the supporting dressing during 3-4 weeks.
Passive training of movements in the shoulder joint was initiated under
supervision of the exercise therapy physician beginning from the second day
after surgery.
The X-ray control was conducted 4, 12, 26 and 52
weeks after surgery. The treatment results were estimated after 12 months from
the surgery.
CSS was used as the objective score (more points
mean better functional outcome), Quick Dash Score (QDS) – as subjective one
(lower amount of points means better functional outcome) for estimation of
results. CSS results were estimated as excellent with more than 90 points, good
– 90-80, satisfactory – 79-70, poor – < 70. QDS was estimated: 0-14 –
excellent function, 15-29 – good, 30-59 – satisfactory, > 60 – poor.
The
statistical analysis of the results was conducted with Excel and the
calculators (www.medstatistic.ru). The
quantitative data was presented as absolute values, mean arithmetic (M),
standard deviations (σ) and mean error in mean arithmetic (m); qualitative
data – relative values in percentage. The critical level of significance (α) for testing the statistical hypotheses was 0.05. Student’s test (t)
for independent samples was used in case of confirmation of normal distribution
of values. P value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS
The
point of entry of the nail was the zone in the plane of anatomical neck of the
humerus on the border between articular surface of the head and the top of
greater tubercle in all surgeries in the first group of patients. It was the
negative feature for osteosynthesis in this group. As for complications, we
should mention the migration of screws owing to absent fixation in some models
of nails (4 cases, 11.4 %). Subsequently, failure of fixation appeared in two
patients at the background of osteoporosis and formation of false joint of
surgical neck of the humerus. High position of the proximal end of the nail
promoted the development of impingement syndrome in 4 patients (11.4 %). The
nail instability in the proximal fragment caused the secondary varus
displacement of the humerus head and fracture union in this position (7 cases,
20 %). Insufficient stability of the construct in the osteoporotic bone was
determined by low density of the bone in the lateral part of the head. Also it
was worsened by the lateral point of entry. It also caused the development of
persistent pain and joint stiffness (3 cases, 8.6 %) due to injury to the site
of fixation of the supraspinous muscle tendon during introduction of the nail.
In
the second group, we did not find any complications, which were common for the
first group. However a complication appeared which was common for multi-fragmental
fractures of PHF. In case of four-fragmental fracture in the patient (age of
42) one year after surgery, we observed the radiological picture of aseptic
necrosis of the humerus head. We relate this complication to the pattern of the
fracture, the injury mechanism (a road traffic accident) and time from the
injury to surgery – 11 days (the injury happened outside the borders of the
Russian Federation). Despite of this complication, Constant Shoulder Score
(CSS) was 78, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QDS) –
15.9, i.e. a satisfactory outcome.
The
offered technique increases the accuracy of reposition and stability of main
fragments of PHF owing to the semi-opened surgical approach. With the
anteriolateral approach, one can estimate and perform the correct point of
entry of the intramedullary nail. Manipulations with low traumatic effect
sutures and high accuracy provide the reposition of tubercles and correction of
the head subluxation. Realization of reposition can be simplified by means of
tenotomy of the CLB tendon, resulting in absence of a secondary dislocation of
fragments after osteosynthesis. Stability of fixation and neutralization of
forces of rotator muscles is provided by soft tissue stabilization of rotator
tendons on the screw tops. Perfusion and bone mass of the humerus head are
preserved by means of use of sutures, but not metal tools. Reposition without
metal devices prevents the damages of vascular and neural structures and
articular surfaces of the humerus head and the scapula. As result, the surgery
time and tissue damage reduce since the amount of used tools decreases.
On
the average, the surgical intervention was conducted 5 days after trauma. The
mean duration of surgery was 59.1 min (47-72) in the first group, 55.4 min
(40-75) in the second one. The decrease in surgery time in the second group was
associated with semi-opened reposition (i.e. better one), absence of time
losses for mounting and removal of temporary pins for reposition, and also due
to absence of X-ray control for some stages of reposition. Despite of presence
of patients with three- and four-fragmental fractures in the second group, it
did not influence on the increase in surgery time; it is also associated with
appropriate control of each stage of surgery through the anteriolateral
approach.
In
the first group, the mean CSS was 73.6, QDS – 24. In the second group, CSS was
93.1, QDS – 4.7. The tables 1 and 2 show the results of treatment.
Table 1. Distribution of results in the first group
|
Results |
CSS |
QDS |
||
|
Amount of patients |
Amount of
points |
Amount of patients |
Amount of
points |
|
|
Excellent |
3 |
92 (0) |
12 |
9.7 ± 3.1 (0.9) |
|
Good |
16 |
82.6 ± 0.9 (0.22) |
9 |
15.9 (0) |
|
Satisfactory |
7 |
72.3 ± 3.9 (1.5) |
12 |
36.35 ± 3.3 (1) |
|
Poor |
9 |
52.5 ± 11.3 (3.8) |
2 |
72.75 ± 6.4 (4.5) |
|
Total: |
35 |
73.6 ± 14.8 (2.5) |
35 |
24 ± 17 (2.9) |
Table 2. Distribution of results in the second group
|
Results |
CSS |
QDS |
||
|
Amount of patients |
Amount of points |
Amount of patients |
Amount of points |
|
|
Excellent |
27 |
96.6 ± 3.0 (0.6) |
33 |
4 ± 4.3 (0.74) |
|
Good |
6 |
82.7 ± 1.0 (0.4) |
2 |
15.9 (0) |
|
Satisfactory |
2 |
78 (0) |
- |
- |
|
Poor |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Total: |
35 |
93.1 ± 7.0 |
35 |
4.7 ± 5.0 |
When
comparing the result of treatment in the first and second group according to
CSS, Student’s test was 7.03. The differences were statistically significant (p
= 0.00). After comparing the treatment results in both groups using QDS,
Student’s test was 6.42. The differences were statistically significant (p = 0.00).
Therefore,
the second group demonstrated better results for use of the offered technique.
The higher amount of excellent and good values of QDS was observed as compared
to CSS. Possibly, this fact was related to the fact that QDS do not include
some objective values such as abduction angle, flexion angle and others. When
estimating their recovery after trauma, patients more orient to everyday
capabilities, but not to real angles of motions.
DISCUSSION
Intramedullary fixation with the nail and locked
screws is a quite rational type of osteosynthesis since it provides several
theoretical advantages as compared to the plate [9]. In 2013, Kogan P.G. et al.
[10] considered the closed locked intramedullary osteosynthesis as one of the
most efficient techniques for treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal
humerus. Murylev et al. [11] called the development of the locked nail for the
proximal humerus as revolution in intramedullary fixation of PHF [11]. However
they believed that reposition should be closed, under X-ray control, without
opened recovery of anatomy. After achievement of better results in the patients
in the second group, we refused to use the plates for PHF fixation in our unit
since 2016. According to our opinion, intramedullary fixation is better than
external fixation for such fractures.
In 2002, Cuny et al. [12] reported on the use of Telegraph
nail for proximal humerus fractures. In contrast to other constructs and
techniques, it was the direct technique, and the authors recommended the
anteriolateral approach through the medial and well vascularized part of the
rotator cuff. Also they reported on the results of 64 nails in the first year.
The results were favorable, including three- and four-fragmental fractures. The
further development of the technique was the practical implementation of the
direct nails of 3rd generation in combination with soft tissue stabilization of
tubercles along with nails of 2nd generation.
In 2009, Blum et al. [13] introduced and accentuated
the term angle stability intramedullary
nails for proximal humerus fractures. They presented a report on 151
proximal humerus fractures, which were fixed in the manner different from
standard locking. Their patients demonstrated the average Constant score values
– 75.3. Similar results were in a study by Kongrad G. et al [14]. The presence
of angle stability of screws in the nail is considered by us as a very
important factor for achievement of a good result of treatment.
The results of the study by Bondarenko P.V. et al.
show the high efficiency of the short direct intramedullary nail for two- and
three –fragmental fractures of the humerus [15]. In 2015, C. Cuny et al. showed
the excellent results of surgical management of three-fragmental fractures of
the proximal humerus with use of intramedullary fixators of the third
generation [16].
When comparing the results of two studies with
similar number of patients and their characteristics [17, 18] with our results,
we received the higher amount of good and excellent estimates and lower number
complications in the second group.
With development of low invasive techniques, some
studies appeared which mentioned some negative moments of closed reposition of
fractures. Mittlmeier W.F. et al. [19] reported on 59 complications in 115 patients. The
most common complication was screw migration (26 of 59). The authors do not
attract attention to the necessity for more proper fixation of tubercles and to
improvement in the technique of screw fixation for prevention of this
complication. The similar amount of complications (39 %, 26 of 61 patients) was
noted in the report by Witney-Lagen C. et al. [20]. The highest amount (7 of
26) was presented by impingement syndrome, which required for removal of the
nail. The second most common complication was migration of the greater tubercle
and absence of its consolidation. With time, the authors gave more attention to
fixation of the tubercle and more proper realization of this stage of surgery.
However the nail was not the single factor which had influenced on
improvement in treatment results. Also the opinions concerning stability of fragments
in PHF have changed. The improvement in treatment results after additional
fixation of tubercles with use of sutures is confirmed by multiple researches
[21, 22]. Prudnikov D.O. et al. [23] gave their attention to the fact that
minimal displacement of fragments was related to serious functional disorders,
and fixation with only screws was inappropriate and gave worse results in comparison
with tensioned eight-shaped loop. According to our observations, stability of
tubercles after osteosynthesis allows earlier initiating the training of
movements in the shoulder joint and without danger of loss of primary
reposition in the postsurgical period.
The disputable issue is management of three- and four-fragmental
fractures with consideration of possible development of avascular necrosis of
capitellum in such patients. In the modern literature, the proportion of
avascular necrosis after fixation with intramedullary nails is 4 % on average
[17, 18, 24, 25]. In case of necessary prosthetics for this category of
patients, it is extremely important to preserve the vitality of elements of the
rotator cuff, resulting in decreasing size of the prosthesis, also up to
limited change of only articular surface of the humerus head. However not all
patients require for prosthetics in case of avascular necrosis of the humerus
head since it is also non-progressing and does not cause strong pain or
functional deficiency [26]. In our study, the single patient with avascular
necrosis of the humerus head is satisfied with the achieved result and refused
from prosthetics.
One should note that the second group did not
demonstrate such complications as joint stiffness and persistent pain, which
are common for PHF. We relate such results to stability of tubercles and tenodesis
(or tenotomy) of CLB tendon since it is known as the persistent source of pain
feelings [27, 28]. All above-mentioned facts gave the possibility for
initiation of early passive training in the shoulder joint with absent pain.
CONCLUSION
The results of the study show the high reliability
and efficiency of the offered technique of osteosynthesis. The use of the
intramedullary nail with additional soft tissue stabilization of tubercles is
possible for all types of PHF. The offered technique should be considered as
the choice method for older patients since it leads to high stability of
fixation with low traumatic potential for tissues.
The positive side of the study is the very low
incidence of complications in the second group of patients. It accentuates the
low number of patients operated with this technique. It is important to consider
some short term results. The perspective for development of the study is
gradual shift to use of nail of 3rd generation in combination with soft tissue
stabilization of tubercles.
One can state that the increase in number of treated
patients and follow-up of long term results demonstrate all positive and
negative sides of the technique.
Information on financing and conflicts of interests
The study was conducted without sponsorship. The authors declare the absence of any potential conflicts of interests relating to publication of this article.
REFERENCES:
1. Jo MJ, Gardner MJ. Proximal humerus fractures. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2012; 5(3): 192-198. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-012-9130-2
2. Handoll
HH, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;
(11): CD000434. DOI: 10.1002/14651858
3. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001; 72(4): 365-371. DOI: 10.1080/000164701753542023
4. Drosdowech DS, Faber KJ, Athwal GS. Open
reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Orthopedic Clinics of North America.
2008; 39(4): 429-439. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.06.003
5. Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Pollock RG. Fractures of the proximal
humerus. In: The Shoulder. 2th ed.
Rockwood CA, Matsen FA. III, eds. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1998. p.
337-389
6. Krishnan SG, Lin KC, Burkhead WZ. Pins, plates,
and prostheses: current concepts in treatment of fractures of the proximal
humerus. Curr Opin Orthop. 2007; 18:
380-385. doi: 10.1097/BCO.0b013e32816aa3b7
7. Smith AM, Mardones RM, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Early complications of operatively treated
proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder
Elbow Surg. 2007; 16(1): 14-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.05.008
8. Dilisio MF, Nowinski RJ, Hatzidakis AM,
Fehringer EV. Intramedullary
nailing of the proximal humerus: evolution, technique, and results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25(5): 130-138.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.11.016
9. Egiazaryan
KA, Ratyev AP, Gordienko DI, Grigoriev AV, Ovcharenko NV. Midterm treatment
outcomes of proximal humerus fractures by intramedullary fixation. Traumatology
and Orthopedics of Russia. 2018;
24(4): 81-88. DOI:
10.21823/2311-2905-2018-24-4-81-88. Russian (Егиазарян
К.А., Ратьев А.П., Гордиенко Д.И., Григорьев А.В., Овчаренко Н.В. Среднесрочные
результаты лечения переломов проксимального отдела плечевой кости методом внутрикостного
остеосинтеза //Травматология и ортопедия
России. 2018. Т. 24, № 4. С. 81-88)
10. Kogan PG, Vorontsova TN, Shubnyakov II,
Voronkevich IA, Lasunskiy SA. Evolution of treatment of the proximal humerus
fractures (review). Traumatology and
Orthopedics of Russia. 2013; (3): 154-161. DOI:
10.21823/2311-2905-2013-3. Russian (Коган П.Г.,
Воронцова Т.Н., Шубняков И.И., Воронкевич И.А., Ласунский С.А. Эволюция лечения
переломов проксимального отдела плечевой кости (обзор литературы) //Травматология и ортопедия России. 2013.
№ 3. С. 154-161)
11. Murylev V, Imamkuliev A,
Elizarov P, Korshev O, Kutuzov A. Surgical treatment for extra-articular
proximal humeral fractures. The Doctor. 2014; (11): 10-13.
Russian (Мурылев В., Имамкулиев А., Елизаров
П., Коршев О., Кутузов А. Хирургическое лечение внесуставных переломов
проксимального отдела плеча //Врач. 2014.
№ 11. C. 10-13)
12. Cuny C, Pfeffer F, Irrazi M,
Chammas M, Empereur F, Berrichi A, et al. A new locking nail for proximal
humerus fractures: the Telegraph nail, technique and preliminary results. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot.
2002; 88(1): 62-67
13. Blum J,
Hansen M, Rommens PM. Angle-stable intramedullary nailing of proximal humerus
fractures with the PHN (proximal humeral nail). Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2009; 21(3): 296-311. DOI: 10.1007/s00064-009-1806-4
14. Konrad
G, Audigé L, Lambert S, Hertel R, Südkamp NP. Similar outcomes for nail versus
plate fixation of three-part proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(2): 602-609. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2056-y
15. Bondarenko
PV, Zagorodniy NV, Gil’fanov SI, Semenistyi AY, Semenistyi AA, Loginov AN.
Surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures with short straight
intramedullary nail. N.N. Priorov
Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2015; (4): 17-20. DOI: 10.32414/0869-8678-2015-4-17-20. Russian (Бондаренко П.В., Загородний
Н.В., Гильфанов С.И., Семенистый А.Ю., Семенистый А.А., Логвинов А.Н. Хирургическое
лечение переломов проксимального отдела плечевой кости коротким прямым интрамедуллярным
гвоздем //Вестник травматологии и ортопедии
имени Н.Н. Приорова. 2015. № 4. С. 17-20)
16. Cuny C, Goetzmann T, Dedome D, Gross JB, Irrazi M, Berrichi A, et al. Antegrade nailing evolution for proximal humeral fractures, the Telegraph IV®: a study
of 67 patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015; 25: 287-295. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-014-1493-1
17. Sosef N, Stobbe I, Hogervorst M, Mommers L, Verbruggen J, van der Elst M, et
al. The Polarus
intramedullary nail for proximal humeral fractures: outcome in 28 patients
followed for 1 year. Acta Orthop.
2007; 78(3): 436-441. DOI: 10.1080/17453670710014040
18. Rajasekhar
C, Ray PS, Bhamra MS. Fixation of
proximal humeral fractures with the Polarus nail. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10(1): 7-10. DOI: 10.1067/mse.2001.109556
19. Mittlmeier WF, Stedtfeld HW,
Ewert A, Beck M, Frosch B, Gradl G. Stabilization of
proximal humeral fractures with an angular and sliding stable antegrade locking
nail (Targon PH). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;
85-A (Suppl 4): 136-146
20. Witney-Lagen
C, Datir S, Kumar V, Venkateswaran B. Treatment of proximal humerus fractures
with the Stryker T2 proximal humeral nail: a study of 61 cases. British Elbow and Shoulder Society: Shoulder
and Elbow. 2013; 5: 48-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-5740.2012.00216
21. Krivohlґavek M, Lukґas R, Taller S, et al. Use of angle-stable implants
for proximal humeral fractures: prospective study. Acta Chir Orthop
Traumatol Cech. 2008; 75(3): 212-220
22. Stedtfeld HW, Mittlmeier T.
Fixation of proximal humeral fractures with an intramedullary nail: tips and
tricks. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg.
2007; 33(4): 367-374. DOI: 10.1007/s00068-007-7094-5
23. Prudnikov
DO, Prudnikov OE, Prudnikov EE. Fracture of greater tuberosity of humerus. Polytrauma. 2007;
(3): 27-32. Russian (Прудников Д.О., Прудников
О.Е., Прудников Е.Е. Перелом большого
бугорка плечевой кости //Политравма.
2007. № 3. С. 27-32)
24. Kazakos K,
Lyras DN,
Galanis V,
Verettas D,
Psillakis I,
Chatzipappas C,
et al.
Internal fixation of proximal humerus
fractures using
the Polarus
intramedullary nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007; 127(7): 503-508. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-007-0390-z
25. Tsitsilonis
S, Schaser KD, Kiefer H, Wichlas F. The Treatment of the proximal humeral
fracture with the use of the PHN Nailing System: the importance of reduction. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2013; 80(4): 250-255
26. Georgousis M, Kontogeorgakos
V, Kourkouvelas S, Badras S, Georgaklis V, Badras L. Internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures with the Polarus
intramedullary nail. Acta Orthop. Belg. 2010; 76(4): 462-467. DOI:
10.1186/1749-799X-7-39
27. Tosounidis T, Hadjileontis
C, Georgiadis M, Kafanas A, Kontakis G. The tendon of the long head of the
biceps in complex proximal humerus fractures: A histological perspective. Injury. 2010; 41(3): 273-278. DOI:
10.1016/j.injury.2009.09.015
28. Elser F, Braun
S, Dewing CB, Giphart JE, Millett PJ. Anatomy,
function, injuries, and treatment of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon. Arthroscopy. 2011; 27(4): 581-592. DOI:
10.1016/j.arthro.2010.10.014
Статистика просмотров
Ссылки
- На текущий момент ссылки отсутствуют.
