A cost-effectiveness analysis of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared with locking plates in the management of displaced proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: the DelPhi trial.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a locking plate for patients 65-85 years old with a displaced proximal humerus fracture. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial, taking a health care perspective. A total of 124 patients with displaced proximal humerus fractures were randomized to treatment with RTSA (n = 64) or ORIF (n = 60) during a 2-year period. The outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years derived from the generic questionnaire 15D in an intention to treat population. The results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in the analysis. RESULTS: At 2 years, 104 patients were eligible for analyses. The mean quality-adjusted life year was 1.24 (95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.28) in the RTSA group and 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.30) in the ORIF group. The mean cost in the RTSA group (€36.755 [€17,654-€55,855]) was higher than that in the ORIF group (€31.953 [€16,226-€47,279]). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ORIF was the dominant treatment. When using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1000 replications, the plots were centered around origo. This indicates that there is no significant difference in cost or effect. CONCLUSION: In the cost-utility analysis of treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures, there were no differences between RTSA and ORIF.

External validity in a multicenter randomized clinical trial of proximal humeral fractures: the DelPhi trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are regarded as the gold standard for effect evaluation in clinical interventions. However, RCTs may not produce relevant results to all patient groups. We aimed to assess the external validity of a multicenter RCT (DelPhi trial). METHODS: The DelPhi RCT investigated whether elderly patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) receiving reversed total shoulder prosthetic replacement (RTSA) gained better functional outcomes compared to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using an proximal humerus locking plate (PHILOS). Eligible patients were between 65 and 85 years old with severely displaced 11-B2 or 11-C2 fractures (AO/OTA-classification, 2007). We compared baseline and follow-up data of patients for two of the seven hospitals that were included in the DelPhi trial (n = 54) with non-included patients (n = 69). Comparisons were made based on reviewing medical records regarding demographic, health and fracture parameters. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of the eligible patients were included in the DelPhi trial. Comparing included and non-included patients indicated higher incidences of serious heart disease (P = 0.044) and a tendency toward higher tobacco intake (P = 0.067) in non-included patients. Furthermore, non-included patients were older (P = 0.040) and had higher ASA classification (P < 0.001) and were in more need for resident aid (in-home assistance) (P = 0.022) than included patients. The cause of PHF was more frequently related to fall indoors in non-included vs. included patients (P = 0.018) and non-included patients were more prone to other concomitant fractures (P = 0.004). Having concomitant fractures was associated with osteoporosis (P = 0.014). We observed no significant differences in rates of complications or deaths between included and non-included patients within 3 months after treatment. In descending order, non-included patients were treated conservatively, with PHILOS, RTSA, anatomic hemi-prothesis or an alternative type of ORIF. RTSA was the preferred treatment choice for C2-type fractures (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results from the DelPhi RCT may not directly apply to older PHFs patients with lower health status or concomitant fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is Superior to Plate Fixation at 2 Years for Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Almost one-third of patients with proximal humeral fractures are treated surgically, and the number is increasing. When surgical treatment is chosen, there is sparse evidence on the optimum method. The DelPhi (Delta prosthesis-PHILOS plate) trial is a clinical trial comparing 2 surgical treatments. Our hypothesis was that reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) yields better clinical results compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using an angular stable plate. METHODS: The DelPhi trial is a randomized controlled trial comparing reverse TSA with ORIF for displaced proximal humeral fractures (OTA/AO types 11-B2 and 11-C2) in elderly patients (65 to 85 years of age). The primary outcome measure was the Constant score at a 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Shoulder Score and radiographic evaluation. Results were reported as the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). The intention-to-treat principle was applied for crossover patients. RESULTS: There were 124 patients included in the study. At 2 years, the mean Constant score was 68.0 points (95% CI, 63.7 to 72.4 points) for the reverse TSA group compared with 54.6 points (95% CI, 48.5 to 60.7 points) for the ORIF group, resulting in a significant mean difference of 13.4 points (95% CI, 6.2 to 20.6 points; p < 0.001) in favor of reverse TSA. When stratified for fracture classification, the mean score was 69.3 points (95% CI, 63.9 to 74.7 points) for the reverse TSA group and 50.6 points (95% CI, 41.9 to 59.2 points) for the ORIF group for type-C2 fractures, which yielded a significant mean difference of 18.7 points (95% CI, 9.3 to 28.2 points; p < 0.001). In the type-B2 fracture group, the mean score was 66.2 points (95% CI, 58.6 to 73.8 points) for the reverse TSA group and 58.5 points (95% CI, 49.6 to 67.4 points) for the ORIF group, resulting in a nonsignificant mean difference of 7.6 points (95% CI, -3.8 to 19.1 points; p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: At a 2-year follow-up, the data suggested an advantage of reverse TSA over ORIF in the treatment of displaced OTA/AO type-B2 and C2 proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.