The outcomes following nonoperative management of minimally displaced greater tuberosity (GT) fractures, and the factors which influence patient experience, remain poorly defined. We assessed the early patient-derived outcomes following these injuries and examined the effect of a range of demographic- and injury-related variables on these outcomes. In total, 101 patients (53 female, 48 male) with a mean age of 50.9 years (19 to 76) with minimally displaced GT fractures were recruited to a prospective observational cohort study. During the first year after injury, patients underwent experiential assessment using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and assessment of associated injuries using MRI performed within two weeks of injury. The primary outcome was the one-year DASH score. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the effect of patient demographic factors, complications, and associated injuries, on outcome.Aims
Methods
Over a seven-year period we treated a consecutive series of 58 patients, 20 men and 38 women with a mean age of 66 years (21 to 87) who had an acute complex anterior fracture-dislocation of the proximal humerus. Two patterns of injury are proposed for study based upon a prospective assessment of the pattern of soft-tissue and bony injury and the degree of devascularisation of the humeral head. In 23 patients, the head had retained capsular attachments and arterial back-bleeding (type-I injury), whereas in 35 patients the head was devoid of significant soft-tissue attachments with no active arterial bleeding (type-II injury). Following treatment by open reduction and internal fixation, only two of 23 patients with type-I injuries developed radiological evidence of osteonecrosis of the humeral head, compared with four of seven patients with type-II injuries. A policy of primary treatment by open reduction and internal fixation of type-I injuries is justified, whereas most elderly patients (aged 60 years or over) with type-II injuries are best treated by hemiarthroplasty. The best treatment for younger patients (aged under 60 years) who sustain type-II injuries is controversial and an individualised approach to their management is advocated.
