Impact of Age on Functional Outcome after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Performed for Proximal Humerus Fractures or Their Sequelae

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Harvard Combined Orthopaedic Residency Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, MA, USA

2 Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, USA

3 Division of Orthopaedic Trauma, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, USA

4 Orthopaedic Trauma Service, SUNY Downstate, Brooklyn, New York, USA

5 Harvard Combined Orthopaedic Residency, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, MA, USA

6 Orthopaedic Geriatric Trauma Surgery and Research, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, MA, USA

Abstract

Background: The use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) to treat displaced, unstable 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) has traditionally been reserved for patients over 70 years old. However, recent data suggest that nearly one third of all patients treated with RSA for PHF are between 55-69 years old. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for patients younger than 70 versus patients older than 70 years of age treated with RSA for a PHF or fracture sequelae.

Methods: All patients who underwent primary RSA for acute PHF or fracture sequelae (nonunion, malunion) between 2004 and 2016 were identified. A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing outcomes for patients younger than 70 versus patients older than 70. Bivariate and survival analyses were performed to evaluate for differences in complications, functional outcomes, and implant survival.

Results: A total of 115 patients were identified, including 39 patients in the young group and 76 patients in the older group. 40 patients (43.5%) returned functional outcomes surveys at an average of 5.51 years (range 3.04-11.0). There were no significant differences in complications, reoperation, implant survival, range of motion, DASH (27.9 vs 23.8, p=0.46), PROMIS (43.3 vs 43.6, p=0.93), or EQ5D (0.75 vs 0.80, p=0.36) scores between the two age cohorts.

Conclusion: At a minimum of 3 years after RSA for a complex PHF or fracture sequelae, we found no significant difference in complications, reoperation rates, or functional outcomes between younger patients with an average age of 64 years and older patients with an average age of 78 years. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically examine the impact of age on outcome after RSA for the treatment of a proximal humerus fracture. These findings indicate that functional outcomes are acceptable to patients younger than 70 in the short term, but more studies are needed. Patients should be counseled that the long-term durability of RSA performed for fracture in young, active patients remains unknown.

Keywords

References

1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult
fractures: A review. Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):691–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130.
2. Kim SH, Szabo RM, Marder RA. Epidemiology of
humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide
emergency department sample, 2008. Arthritis Care
Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(3):407–14. doi: 10.1002/
acr.21563.
3. Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al. Surgical
management of complex proximal humerus
fractures-a systematic review of 92 studies including
4500 patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(1):54–9.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000229.
4. Hhg H, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal
humeral fractures in adults ( Review ) SUMMARY OF
FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2015;(11):CD000434. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub4.
5. Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, et al. Surgical vs
nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced
fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER
randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(10):1037–
47. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.1629.
6. Orman S, Mohamadi A, Serino J, et al. Comparison
of surgical and non-surgical treatments for 3- and
4-part proximal humerus fractures: A network metaanalysis. Shoulder Elbow. 2020;12(2):99–108. doi:
10.1177/1758573219831506.
7. Longo UG, Petrillo S, Berton A, Denaro V. Reverse
total shoulder arthroplasty for the management
of fractures of the proximal humerus: a systematic
review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016;100(2):83-91. doi:
10.1007/s12306-016-0409-0.
8. Spross C, Meester J, Mazzucchelli RA, Puskás GJ,
Zdravkovic V, Jost B. Evidence-based algorithm to
treat patients with proximal humerus fractures—a
prospective study with early clinical and overall
performance results. J Shoulder Elb Surg.
2019;28(6):1022–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.02.015.
9. Fraser AN, Bjørdal J, Wagle TM, et al. Reverse
Shoulder Arthroplasty Is Superior to Plate Fixation
at 2 Years for Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures
in the Elderly: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled
Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(6):477–85. doi:
10.2106/JBJS.19.01071.
10.Acevedo DC, Vanbeek C, Lazarus MD, Williams GR,
Abboud JA. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal
humeral fractures: update on indications, technique,
and results. J shoulder Elb Surg.2014;23(2):279–89.
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.10.003.
11.Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing
incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United
States. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2011;93(24):2249–54.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.
12.Acevedo DC, Mann T, Abboud JA, Getz C, Baumhauer
JF, Voloshin I. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for
the treatment of proximal humeral fractures: patterns
of use among newly trained orthopedic surgeons. J
shoulder Elb Surg.2014;23(9):1363–7. doi: 10.1016/j.
jse.2014.01.005.
13.Palsis JA, Simpson KN, Matthews JH, Traven S,
Eichinger JK, Friedman RJ. Current Trends in
the Use of Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United
States. Orthopedics. 2018;41(3):e416–23. doi:
10.3928/01477447-20180409-05.
14.Dillon MT, Prentice HA, Burfeind WE, Chan PH,
Navarro RA. The increasing role of reverse total
shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of proximal
humerus fractures. Injury. 2019;50(3):676–80. doi:
10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.034.
15.Grubhofer F, Wieser K, Meyer DC, et al. Reverse total
shoulder arthroplasty for acute head-splitting, 3-
and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the
elderly. J shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(10):1690–8. doi:
10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.024.
16.Gallinet D, Clappaz P, Garbuio P, Tropet Y, Obert L.
Three or four parts complex proximal humerus
fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus reverse
prosthesis: a comparative study of 40 cases.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.2009;95(1):48–55. doi:
10.1016/j.otsr.2008.09.002.
17.Klein M, Juschka M, Hinkenjann B, Scherger B,
Ostermann PAW. Treatment of comminuted fractures
of the proximal humerus in elderly patients with
the Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop
Trauma. 2008;22(10):698-704. doi: 10.1097/
BOT.0b013e31818afe40.
18.Ek ETH, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse
total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable
rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years
old: results after five to fifteen years. J shoulder
Elb Surg.2013;22(9):1199–208. doi: 10.1016/j.
jse.2012.11.016.
19.Chalmers PN, Slikker W, Mall NA, et al. Reverse total
shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral
fracture: comparison to open reduction-internal
fixation and hemiarthroplasty. J shoulder Elb
Surg.2014;23(2):197–204doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.
07.044..
20.Jobin CM, Galdi B, Anakwenze OA, Ahmad CS,
Levine WN. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the
management of proximal humerus fractures. J Am
Acad Orthop Surg.2015;23(3):190–201. doi: 10.5435/
JAAOS-D-13-00190.
21.Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W,
Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total
and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an agedependent analysis. Knee.2014;21(1):180–4. doi:
10.1016/j.knee.2013.08.004.
22.Anakwenze OA, Zoller S, Ahmad CS, Levine WN.
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal
humerus fractures: a systematic review. J shoulder
Elb Surg.2014;23(4):e73-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.
2013.09.012. 23.Gallinet D, Cazeneuve JF, Boyer E, et al. Reverse
shoulder arthroplasty for recent proximal humerus
fractures: Outcomes in 422 cases. Orthop Traumatol
Surg Res. 2019;105(5):805–11. doi: 10.1016/j.
otsr.2019.03.019.
24.Namdari S, Horneff JG, Baldwin K. Comparison
of hemiarthroplasty and reverse arthroplasty for
treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic
review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1701–8.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01115.
25.Ferrel JR, Trinh TQ, Fischer RA. Reverse Total
Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for
Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Systematic Review.
J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(1):60-8. doi: 10.1097/
BOT.0000000000000224.
26.Dezfuli B, King JJ, Farmer KW, Struk AM, Wright TW.
Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
as primary versus revision procedure for
proximal humerus fractures. J shoulder Elb Surg.
2016;25(7):1133–7doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.002..
27.Gallinet D, Adam A, Gasse N, Rochet S, Obert L.
Improvement in shoulder rotation in complex
shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder
arthroplasty. J shoulder Elb Surg.2013;22(1):38–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.03.011.
28.Mata-Fink A, Meinke M, Jones C, Kim B, Bell JE. Reverse
shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal
humeral fractures in older adults: A systematic
review. J Shoulder Elb Surg.2013;22(12):1737–48.
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.021.
29.Rotman D, Giladi O, Senderey AB, et al. Mortality
After Complex Displaced Proximal Humerus
Fractures in Elderly Patients: Conservative
Versus Operative Treatment With Reverse
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop
Surg Rehabil.2018;9:2151459318795241. doi:
10.1177/2151459318795241.
30.Torchia MT, Austin DC, Cozzolino N, Jacobowitz
L, Bell J-E. Acute versus delayed reverse total
shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal
humeral fractures in the elderly population: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J shoulder
Elb Surg.2019;28(4):765–73. doi: 10.1016/j.
jse.2018.10.004.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 11, Issue 1
January 2023
Pages 29-38

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 May 2021
  • Revise Date: 17 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 22 February 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics