Treatment of comminuted proximal humeral fractures using locking plate with strut allograft

Background: This study compared the radiologic outcome of fixation using locking plate only with fixation using locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft in the treatment of comminuted proximal humeral fracture. Methods Among 52 patients with comminuted proximal humeral fracture, 32 patients underwent fixation with locking plate only, and 20 patients underwent fixation using locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft. The strut allograft was inserted into the intramedullary cavity of the humerus to support the humeral head and fixed with the locking plate. Immediate postoperative radiologic findings were compared with those of 6 months or more after the surgery, and loss of anatomic fixation was defined if the varus malalignment of neck-shaft angle (NSA) was more than 5° or if the change of humeral head height (HHH) was more than 3 mm. Results In the locking plate-only group, 22 of 32 patients (69%) showed the change in NSA of more than 5°, with an average of 10.2°. The HHH change in 20 patients (62.5%) was more than 3 mm, with an average of 4 mm. Among 20 patients who underwent locking plate with the endosteal strut allograft, the average NSA and HHH change was 3° and 1 mm, respectively. Varus malalignment was evident in 2 patients (10%). The HHH change was more than 3 mm in 1 patient (5%). Conclusion Fixation using a locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft can be considered a reasonable option to maintain the anatomic reduction in elderly patients with comminuted proximal humeral fracture. This study compared the radiologic outcome of fixation using locking plate only with fixation using locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft in the treatment of comminuted proximal humeral fracture. Among 52 patients with comminuted proximal humeral fracture, 32 patients underwent fixation with locking plate only, and 20 patients underwent fixation using locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft. The strut allograft was inserted into the intramedullary cavity of the humerus to support the humeral head and fixed with the locking plate. Immediate postoperative radiologic findings were compared with those of 6 months or more after the surgery, and loss of anatomic fixation was defined if the varus malalignment of neck-shaft angle (NSA) was more than 5° or if the change of humeral head height (HHH) was more than 3 mm. In the locking plate-only group, 22 of 32 patients (69%) showed the change in NSA of more than 5°, with an average of 10.2°. The HHH change in 20 patients (62.5%) was more than 3 mm, with an average of 4 mm. Among 20 patients who underwent locking plate with the endosteal strut allograft, the average NSA and HHH change was 3° and 1 mm, respectively. Varus malalignment was evident in 2 patients (10%). The HHH change was more than 3 mm in 1 patient (5%). Fixation using a locking plate with an endosteal strut allograft can be considered a reasonable option to maintain the anatomic reduction in elderly patients with comminuted proximal humeral fracture.