ABSTRACT
AIM: Although being one of the most common fractures in elderly patients, there is still no standardised treatment protocol for four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. However, a wide variety of angular-stable implants is available. The present retrospective study compares the clinical and radiological outcome following operative treatment of four-part fractures of the proximal humerus with the Philos system (Philos, proximal humeral internal locking system, Synthes GmbH, Umkirch Germany) and the angular-stable Königsee plate system (Königsee Implantate GmbH, Allendorf, Germany) in patients older than 65 years. METHODS: From July 2005 until December 2007 we identified 77 patients with a four-part fracture of the proximal humerus who were treated operatively with one of the two implant systems. Of the patients, 17 could not be located so that in total 60 patients (78 %) participated in this study. The mean age of the 30 patients (10 m, 20 f) in the Philos group was 69 years (65-92), whereas the mean age of the 30 patients (11 m, 19 f) in the Königsee group was 71 years (65-93). A comprehensive assessment was performed after a median of 17 months (12-24), including physical examination, radiographic examination and completion of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score (DASH) and the Constant score (CS) as patient-oriented, limb-specific questionnaires. RESULTS: Neither in the Philos nor in the Königsee group could excellent results be achieved. Using the CS 13 patients (43 %) of the Philos group achieved a good and 15 (50 %) a satisfactory result. Bad results were found in 2 patients (7 %). The mean CS was 61.53 points. In the Königsee group mean CS was 61.76 points. In detail, 14 patients (47 %) treated with the Königsee implant were rated as good and 15 (50 %) as satisfactory. Only 1 patient (3 %) was rated as poor. No significant statistical differences were found between the groups. Mean DASH score in the Philos group was 56.30 points and 55.37 points in the Königsee group. Again, no statistical difference was found. Partial humeral head necrosis was observed in 2 patients of the Philos and 1 of the Königsee group. In the remaining patients uneventful fracture consolidation was observed. There were no complications requiring further surgical intervention. To the date of follow-up all implants were still in situ and none of the patients reported discomfort with respect to the hardware. CONCLUSION: In this study we were able to demonstrate that good and satisfactory results can be achieved in the majority of patients, regardless of whether a Philos or a Königsee system was used. Significant differences between the two groups could not be found in any of the performed examinations. Both implants seem to be suitable in four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. However, the Königsee plate represents a more cost-effective option compared to the Philos system.
