An updated systematic review and meta‑analysis comparing deltoid‑split approach with deltopectoral approach for proximal humerus fractures

Wu,Zhe; Shen,Wenting

doi:10.3892/etm.2023.11995

An updated systematic review and meta‑analysis comparing deltoid‑split approach with deltopectoral approach for proximal humerus fractures

Authors:
- Zhe Wu
- Wenting Shen
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China
Published online on: May 5, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2023.11995
Article Number: 296
Copyright: © Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present review and meta‑analysis aimed to summarize the currently available data and to compare the important clinical and functional outcomes in patients with proximal humerus fractures who were treated using deltoid split (DS) or deltopectoral (DP) surgical approaches. The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials or observational studies that reported functional outcome data of patients with fracture of proximal humerus who were surgically treated using DS and DP approaches. A total of 14 studies were included in the present meta‑analysis. The duration of surgery [min; weighted mean difference (WMD), ‑16.44; 95% CI, ‑(25.25‑7.63)], amount of blood loss [ml; WMD, ‑57.99; 95% CI, ‑(102.74‑13.23)] and time to bone union [weeks WMD, ‑1.66; 95% CI, ‑(2.30‑1.02)] was comparatively lower in patients that underwent DS. There were no statistically significant differences in the pain and quality of life scores, range of movement and risk of complications between the DS and the DP groups. Patients in the DS group had improved shoulder function and constant shoulder score (CSS) at 3 months post‑surgery (WMD, 6.36; 95% CI, 1.06‑11.65). No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of CSS and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scores at 12 and 24 months post‑operatively. The activity of daily living (ADL) score was significantly improved in the DS group at 3 (WMD, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.40‑2.06), 6 (WMD, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72‑1.25) and 12 months (WMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.18‑1.47) after the surgery. The present results suggested that DS and DP surgical approaches were associated with similar clinical outcomes. The DS approach was associated with certain perioperative benefits, as well as reduced time to bone union, improved shoulder function in the early postoperative period and improved ADL scores. These benefits may be considered while choosing between these two surgical approaches.

View Figures

View References

1	Launonen AP, Lepola V, Saranko A, Flinkkilä T, Laitinen M and Mattila VM: Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Osteoporos. 10(209)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Bergdahl C, Ekholm C, Wennergren D, Nilsson F and Möller M: Epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of 2,011 humeral fractures: Data from the Swedish Fracture Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 17(159)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Passaretti D, Candela V, Sessa P and Gumina S: Epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures: A detailed survey of 711 patients in a metropolitan area. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 26:2117–2124. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Khmelnitskaya E, Lamont LE, Taylor SA, Lorich DG, Dines DM and Dines JS: Evaluation and management of proximal humerus fractures. Adv Orthop. 2012(861598)2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Bahrs C, Stojicevic T, Blumenstock G, Brorson S, Badke A, Stöckle U, Rolauffs B and Freude T: Trends in epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. 38:1697–1704. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Lee SH, Dargent-Molina P and Bréart G: EPIDOS Group. Epidemiologie de l'Osteoporose Study. Risk factors for fractures of the proximal humerus: Results from the EPIDOS prospective study. J Bone Miner Res. 17:817–825. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Iglesias-Rodríguez S, Domínguez-Prado DM, García-Reza A, Fernández-Fernández D, Pérez-Alfonso E, García-Piñeiro J and Castro-Menéndez M: Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 16(402)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Maier D, Jäger M, Strohm PC and Südkamp NP: Treatment of proximal humeral fractures-a review of current concepts enlightened by basic principles. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 79:307–316. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
9	Vachtsevanos L, Hayden L, Desai AS and Dramis A: Management of proximal humerus fractures in adults. World J Orthop. 5:685–693. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Schumaier A and Grawe B: Proximal humerus fractures: Evaluation and management in the elderly patient. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 9(2151458517750516)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Mao F, Zhang DH, Peng XC and Liao Y: Comparison of surgical versus non-surgical treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: A meta-analysis. J Invest Surg. 28:215–224. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Mauro CS: Proximal humeral fractures. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 4:214–220. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Berkes MB, Little MT and Lorich DG: Open reduction internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 6:47–56. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Gavaskar AS, Chowdary N and Abraham S: Complex proximal humerus fractures treated with locked plating utilizing an extended deltoid split approach with a shoulder strap incision. J Orthop Trauma. 27:73–76. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Xie L, Zhang Y, Chen C, Zheng W, Chen H and Cai L: Deltoid-split approach versus deltopectoral approach for proximal humerus fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 105:307–316. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J and Altman DG: PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 2009.
17	Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M and Tugwell P: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. 21.
18	Higgins JP and Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK), 2019.
19	Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M and Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 315:629–634. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Hepp P, Theopold J, Voigt C, Engel T, Josten C and Lill H: The surgical approach for locking plate osteosynthesis of displaced proximal humeral fractures influences the functional outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 17:21–28. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Wu CH, Ma CH, Yeh JJ, Yen CY, Yu SW and Tu YK: Locked plating for proximal humeral fractures: Differences between the deltopectoral and deltoid-splitting approaches. J Trauma. 71:1364–1370. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Martetschläger F, Siebenlist S, Weier M, Sandmann G, Ahrens P, Braun K, Elser F, Stöckle U and Freude T: Plating of proximal humeral fractures. Orthopedics. 35:e1606–e1612. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Buecking B, Mohr J, Bockmann B, Zettl R and Ruchholtz S: Deltoid-split or deltopectoral approaches for the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 472:1576–1585. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Bandalović A, Cukelj F, Knežević J, Ostojić M, Pavić A, Parać Z and Rošin M: The results of internal fixation of proximal humeral osteoporotic fractures with PHILOS locking plate. Psychiatr Danub. 26 (Suppl 2):S376–S381. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
25	Siripong S and Tangsripong P: Locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fracture: Minimally invasive vs. standard delto-pectoral approach. J Med Assoc Thai. 98:196–200. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
26	Fischer C, Frank M, Kunz P, Tanner M, Weber MA, Moghaddam A, Schmidmaier G and Hug A: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) after open and minimally invasive locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 47:1725–1731. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Vijayvargiya M, Pathak A and Gaur S: Outcome analysis of locking plate fixation in proximal humerus fracture. J Clin Diagn Res. 10:RC01–RC05. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	Zhao L, Yang P, Zhu L and Chen AM: Minimal invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) through deltoid-pectoralis approach for the treatment of elderly proximal humeral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 18(187)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	Büyükkuşcu MÖ, Kulduk A, Mısır A, Çetinkaya E, Çamurcu İY and Gürsu ŞS: Effect of surgical approaches on deltoid innervation and clinical outcomes in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 31:515–522. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Borer J, Schwarz J, Potthast S, Jakob M, Lenzlinger P, Zingg U and Babians A: Mid-term results of minimally invasive deltoid-split versus standard open deltopectoral approach for PHILOS^TM (proximal humeral internal locking system) osteosynthesis in proximal humeral fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 46:825–834. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Kim JY, Lee J and Kim SH: Comparison between MIPO and the deltopectoral approach with allogenous fibular bone graft in proximal humeral fractures. Clin Shoulder Elb. 23:136–143. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	Rouleau DM, Balg F, Benoit B, Leduc S, Malo M, Vézina F and Laflamme GY: Deltopectoral vs. deltoid split approach for proximal HUmerus fracture fixation with locking plate: A prospective RAndomized study (HURA). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 29:2190–2199. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Bhayana H, Chouhan DK, Aggarwal S, Prakash M, Patel S, Arora C and Dhillon MS: Outcomes of plate osteosynthesis for displaced 3-part and 4-part proximal humerus fractures with deltopectoral vs. deltoid split approach. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 48:4559–4567. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Hawkins RJ and Kiefer GN: Internal fixation techniques for proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (223):77–85. 1987.PubMed/NCBI
35	Morgan SJ, Furry K, Parekh AA, Agudelo JF and Smith WR: The deltoid muscle: An anatomic description of the deltoid insertion to the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 20:19–21. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
36	Hintermann B, Trouillier HH and Schäfer D: Rigid internal fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus in older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 82:1107–1112. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar