Abstract
Several methods have been used for proximal humeral reconstruction following tumour resection. None of these modalities allow the patient to regain his normal shoulder range of motion. Moreover, every modality has its advantages and disadvantages.
The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of 2 reconstructive modalities that we are using in our institution for proximal humeral reconstruction; endoprosthesis and shoulder arthrodesis using a vascularised autograft This study included 48 patients diagnosed with malignant or benign aggressive tumours that required resection of their proximal humerus. They were divided into 2 groups according to the method of reconstruction. Group 1 included 22 patients with an average age of 20 years were reconstructed by shoulder arthrodesis using a free vascularised fibular graft (6) or a pedicled scapular crest graft (16). Group 2 included 26 patients with an average age of 26 years were reconstructed with an endoprosthesis.
In group 1 the average follow up period was 88 months (range 12 to 184 months). The average functional outcome (according to the MSTS scoring system) was 25 points (range 19 – 28). The average abduction and forward flexion range of motion (scapulothoracic) was 40 degrees (range 20 -60). Complications included failed fixation (2), non union (1), infection (1) and temporary radial nerve palsy (2). In group 2 the average follow up period was 36 months (range 12 – 110). The average functional outcome was 24 points (range 20 – 27). The average abduction and forward flexion range of motion was 40 (range 30 –70). Complications included sublaxation (2), loosening (1) and infection (1).
Reconstruction of the proximal humerus by arthrodesis or endoprosthesis yield similar functional outcome. Although endoprosthesis is a much more expensive modality, it does not provide any superior functional outcome over shoulder arthrodesis.
