Comparison of Locked Plating of Varus Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures With and Without Fibula Allograft Augmentation

Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients treated with fibula allograft-augmented locking compression fixation and patients treated with locking compression fixation alone for 2- and 3-part proximal humeral fractures with varus displacement. Design Retrospective review. Setting Level 1 trauma center. Patients/participants One hundred two patients treated with locking plate fixation ± fibular allograft augmentation confirmed intraoperatively by visual inspection to have varus-angulated, 2- and 3-part proximal humerus fractures with at least 45 degrees of varus angulation at the neck/shaft and at least 1 cm of displacement. Intervention Proximal humerus locking plate (PHILOS; Synthes, Paoli, PA) with or without fibula allograft augmentation. Main outcome measurements Statistical analysis to determine the differences between fractures treated with locking compression fixation ± fibula allograft augmentation regarding complications, shoulder reported outcome measures, and patient ROMs (Visual Analog Score (VAS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, and Simple Shoulder Test scores). Medical comorbidities as potential risk factors for complication from surgery were also evaluated. Results Of 102 surgical cases, 27 were augmented with fibula allograft and 75 were not. Postoperatively, there were 16 noncatastrophic varus collapses of the fracture, 6 catastrophic varus collapses, and 5 deaths. Addition of fibula allograft did not significantly affect postoperative varus collapse, shoulder ROM, pain, or PROMs. Conclusion Addition of fibula allograft to patients sustaining varus-angulated, 2- and 3-part proximal humeral fractures conferred no benefit to patient outcomes at our institution. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.