Immobilization Period for the Non-Operative Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis



1 Orthopedics Research Center, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran



Objectives: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common fractures in the elderly and are typically 
treated conservatively with immobilization. However, there is no consensus on whether to choose early 
or late conventional mobilization, taking their outcomes into ac count. This paper reviews comparative 
studies on the clinical outcomes of one- and three-week immobilization periods in terms of limb function, 
pain intensity, and complications following the adoption of the non -surgical treatment of PHF.
Methods: The current systematic review started with searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases 
for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on PHF patients to compare the clinical outcomes between patients receiving 
the one-week mobilization (early mobilization) and those receiving the three-week mobilization (late mobilization). 
We also performed a meta-analysis to compare the two groups’ limb function and pain levels at three and six months 
of follow-up.
Results: Five of the seven RCTs had adequate data to be included in the meta-analysis. The quantitative results 
showed that the early mobilized patients had improved limb function at three [weighted mean difference (WMD): 
5.15 (CI 95%: 0.68-9.62)] and six [WMD: 3.51 (CI 95%: 0.43-6.60)] months, but not at 12 months of follow-up. At 
either three, six, or 12 months, there was no difference in pain intensity between the two groups.
Conclusion: This review supports the adoption of early mobilization at one week for the non-operative management 
of PHFs. However, to compare the long-term effects, more clinical trials with longer follow-ups are needed.
 Level of evidence: I


Main Subjects

  1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006; 37(8):691-697. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130.
  2. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 442:87-92. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000194672.79634.78.
  3. Hageman MG, Jayakumar P, King JD, Guitton TG, Doornberg JN, Ring D. The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2015; 24(1):e21-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.013.
  4. Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ. Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2008; 17(1):42-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.016.
  5. Okike K, Lee OC, Makanji H, Harris MB, Vrahas MS. Factors associated with the decision for operative versus non-operative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. Injury. 2013; 44(4):448-455. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.09.002.
  6. Davey MS, Hurley ET, Anil U, et al. Management options for proximal humerus fractures–A systematic review & network meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Injury. 2022; 53(2):244-249. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.12.022.
  7. Handoll HH, Elliott J, Thillemann TM, Aluko P, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 6(6):CD000434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub5.
  8. Handoll H, Keding A, Corbacho B, Brealey S, Hewitt C, Rangan A. Five-year follow-up results of the PROFHER trial comparing operative and non-operative treatment of adults with a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B (3):383-392. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B3.BJJ-2016-1028.
  9. 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):1037-1047. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.1629.
  10. Østergaard HK, Mechlenburg I, Launonen AP, Vestermark MT, Mattila VM, Ponkilainen VT. The benefits and harms of early mobilization and supervised exercise therapy after Non-surgically treated proximal humerus or distal radius fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2021; 14(2):107-129. doi: 10.1007/s12178-021-09697-5.
  11. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
  12. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. London, UK. 2011.
  13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186.
  14. Kristiansen B, Angermann P, Larsen T. Functional results following fractures of the proximal humerus: a controlled clinical study comparing two periods of immobilization. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989; 108(6):339-41. doi: 10.1007/BF00932441.
  15. Lefevre-Colau M, Babinet A, Fayad F, et al. Immediate mobilization compared with conventional immobilization for the impacted nonoperatively treated proximal humeral fracture: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(12):2582-90. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01419.
  16. Martínez R, Santana F, Pardo A, Torrens C. One versus 3-week immobilization period for nonoperatively treated proximal humeral fractures: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021; 103(16):1491-1498. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.02137.
  17. Hodgson S, Mawson S. Rehabilitation after two-part fractures of the neck of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003; 85(3):419-22. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b3.13458.
  18. Lopiz Y, Alcobía-Díaz B, Galán-Olleros M, García-Fernández C, Picado AL, Marco F. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment for 3-or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(12):2259-2271. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.06.024.
  19. Dabija DI, Jain NB. Minimal clinically important difference of shoulder outcome measures and diagnoses: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 98(8):671-676. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001169.
  20. Cunningham C, O'Sullivan R, Caserotti P, Tully MA. Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: A systematic review of reviews and meta‐analyses. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020; 30(5):816-827. doi: 10.1111/sms.13616.
  21. Hodgson S, Mawson S, Saxton J, Stanley D. Rehabilitation of two-part fractures of the neck of the humerus (two-year follow-up). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16(2):143-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.06.003.
  22. S II NC. Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures. Part II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970; 52(6):1090-103.
  23. Jayakumar P, Teunis T, Williams M, Lamb S, Ring D, Gwilym S. Factors associated with the magnitude of limitations during recovery from a fracture of the proximal humerus: predictors of limitations after proximal humerus fracture. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B (6):715-723. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-0857.R1.
  24. Johnson NA, Dias J. The effect of social deprivation on fragility fracture of the distal radius. Injury. 2019; 50(6):1232-1236. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.04.025.