Abstract
The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The literature is full of articles and commentary supporting one method over another. Options include open reduction and internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Treatment options in an active 65-year-old are exceptionally controversial given the fact that people in this middle-aged group still wished to remain active and athletic in many circumstances. A hemiarthroplasty offers the advantage of a greater range of motion, however, this has a high incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion and this is a very common reason for revision of that hemiarthroplasty for fracture to a reverse shoulder replacement. One recent study showed a 73% incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion in shoulders that had a revised hemiarthroplasty to a reverse shoulder replacement. Progressive glenoid wear and erosion is also a risk after a hemiarthroplasty in the younger patient, especially someone who is young and active. In addition, studies show shorter operative time in hemiarthroplasty. The range of motion is highly dependent on proper tuberosity healing and this is often one of the most challenging aspects of the surgical procedure as well as the healing process. A reverse shoulder replacement in general has less range of motion compared to a hemiarthroplasty with anatomically healed tuberosities, however, the revision rate is lower compared to a hemiarthroplasty. (This is likely related to few were options for revision). The results after a reverse shoulder replacement may not be as dependent on tuberosity healing, however, importantly the tuberosities do need to be repaired and the results are significantly better if there is healing of the greater tuberosity, giving some infraspinatus and/or teres minor function to the shoulder. Complete lack of tuberosity healing forces the shoulder into obligate internal rotation with attempted elevation and this can be functionally disabling. Academic discussion is beginning surrounding the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis in a primary setting as it is believed that the glenosphere and baseplate may have greater longevity than a polyethylene glenoid. Along with this discussion, we will likely see greater application of the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of fracture for younger patients.
In general, open reduction internal fixation should still remain the treatment of choice in the setting of a fracture that can be fixed. However, a strong argument can be made that if an arthroplasty is necessary, a reverse shoulder replacement is the implant of choice.
