Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fracture Using Polarus Nail and Philos Plate

Choi,  Chang Hyuk; Sim,  Jung Hyun; Lee,  Sang Hwa; Lee,  Joo Hwan; Nam,  Jun Ho

doi:2014.17.3.120

Search: Clin Shoulder Elb Search

CLOSE

Clin Shoulder Elb > Volume 17(3); 2014 > Article

Original Article

Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2014;17(3):120-126.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5397/CiSE.2014.17.3.120 Published online September 30, 2014.

Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fracture Using Polarus Nail and Philos Plate

Chang Hyuk Choi, Jung Hyun Sim, Sang Hwa Lee, Joo Hwan Lee, Jun Ho Nam

Shoulder and Elbow Joint Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea. chchoi@cu.ac.kr

Received: 22 June 2014 • Revised: 22 July 2014 • Accepted: 23 July 2014

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the treatment of the proximal humerus fracture using a Polarus nail or Philos plate, we aimed to analyze the functional recovery and the factors affecting the selection between the two types of surgery.
METHODS
The study included 107 patients with proximal humerus fracture who underwent surgery at our institution. Of these patients, 67 underwent surgery with Polarus nails (G1) and 40 with Philos plates (G2). In G1, the cases of two- and three-part fractures were 60 and 7 cases, in G2, the cases of two-, three-, and four-part fractures were 28, 10, and 2 cases, respectively. The average age was 61 years old, and the average follow-up period was 32.5 months. We compared radiological results, the functional recovery retrospectively.
RESULTS
The radiological union time was 6.8 weeks and 8.7 weeks on average in G1 and G2 (p < 0.05). At the one-year follow-up period, these were visual analogue scale (VAS) 1.355, forward flexion (FF) 130.968, external rotation (ER) 50.161, internal rotation (IR) L2 in G1, and VAS 0.781, FF 135.806 ER 51.25, IR L1 in G2, respectively, showing no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). Similar observations were made at the final follow-up. In terms of functional recovery, no significant differences were seen at the one-year or at the final follow-up period (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
For the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fracture, the selection of the type of surgery is affected by the fracture pattern. However, both methods give satisfactory outcomes and do not show significant differences in the functional outcome after the surgery.

Key Words: Proximal humeral fracture; Polarus nail; Philos plate

TOOLS