OUTCOMES FOLLOWING PHILOS PLATE FIXATION FOR PROXIMAL HUMERAL FRACTURES

Abstract

Introduction: The surgical management of proximal humeral fractures continues to be an unsolved problem for the orthopaedic surgeon. Disagreement remains over how best to fix the more challenging complex fractures in younger patients where the ultimate goals of treatment are restoration of a painless shoulder, adequate function, and preservation of humeral head viability.

The PHILOS plate attempts to improve on previously designed implants by preserving the biological integrity of the humeral head articular fragment. The minimally invasive technique minimises soft tissue damage whilst at the same time securing the reduction using multiple locking screws with angular stability, thus allowing early mobilisation.

Methods: Retrospective review of the notes and x-ray images of 54 fractures treated with the PHILOS plate between Jan 2000 and Aug 2005. Data including baseline demographics, the presence of any complications and the need for reoperation were collected. In addition 43 (81%) patients were contacted and Oxford (OSS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores were calculated to assess functional recovery. All patients were contacted at a minimum of 6 months following fixation with an average follow up of 18 months (Range 6–41 months)

We also present a cost analysis relating to the use of the PHILOS plate in practice.

Results: 54 fractures in 53 patients (25F:28M). Average age 54.4. There were 26 2-part, 15 3-part and 13 4-part fractures. A total of 11 (20%) patients had complications of which 7 (13%) required reoperation. These complications included deep infection (3 cases), AVN (4), Non Union (3) and plate impingement (1).

Mean OSS and DASH at follow up were 24.8 (S.D 11.6) and 28.0 (S.D 26.9) respectively. Worse scores were seen in those patients who had complications (OSS 39.4 Vs 22.6, DASH 58.2 Vs 23.4) although this difference was not statistically significant. There was also a trend for poorer scores with increasing fracture complexity and better scores in those patients operated upon by surgeons with a specific interest in the upper limb and in patients whose surgeon had performed more than 5 fixations.

Conclusion: Our series reports a much higher complication rate (20%) than that previously published. Whilst those patients who do not suffer complications reported good functional outcomes the presence of postoperative complications was associated with poorer results. Outcomes following surgery were affected by patient, implant and surgeon related factors. Given the high rate of serious complications and their detrimental affect on outcome surgeons should give serious consideration to the appropriateness of using such implants. To clarify these issues, further prospective randomised trials are needed.