The Role of Computed Tomography in Evaluating Intra-Articular Distal Humerus Fractures.

Computed tomography (CT) is often used to evaluate intra-articular distal humerus fracture patterns, but it increases radiation exposure and cost. We conducted a study to determine the effect of adding CT evaluation to plain radiographic evaluation on the classification of, and treatment plans for, intra-articular distal humerus fractures. Nine blinded orthopedic surgeons evaluated 30 consecutive fractures for classification and surgical approach. Evaluations were performed first using plain radiographs and then again using the same radiographs plus CT images. Statistical analysis was performed using the κ correlation coefficient and Cramer V testing. We hypothesized that adding CT images to plain radiographs would change the classification and treatment of these fractures and would improve interobserver agreement on classification and treatment. Intraobserver reliability (Cramer V) was fair (.393) for classification and moderate (.426) for treatment. Interobserver reliability (Cohen κ) did not improve with CT: For classification, κ was .21 without CT and .20 with CT; for treatment, κ was .28 without CT and .27 with CT. When classifying the fractures, attending surgeons chose the multiplanar fracture pattern 25.6% of the time without CT, and remained consistent at 23.3% with CT. Trainees chose this fracture pattern much less often without CT than with CT. Use of CT changed the treatment for multiplanar fractures (73.7% lateral approach vs 51.9% posterior approach with olecranon osteotomy). When added to plain radiographic evaluation, CT evaluation changes classification and treatment plans. Interobserver reliability did not improve. Less experienced surgeons were more likely to identify multiplanar fracture patterns with use of CT. We recommend performing CT for all intra-articular distal humerus fractures.

Primary partial humeral head resurfacing: outcomes with the HemiCAP implant.

BACKGROUND: Humeral head defects such as degenerative disease or avascular necrosis are often treated with stemmed hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty. Despite its historical and clinical significance, stemmed humeral head replacement poses inherent technical challenges to placing spherical implants at the anatomically correct head height, version, and neck-shaft angle. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess humeral head inlay arthroplasty as a joint-preserving alternative that maintains the individual head-neck-shaft anatomy. Humeral head inlay arthroplasty also allows intraoperative surface mapping and placement of a contoured articular component that is matched to the patient's defect size, location, and individual surface geometry. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: This retrospective case series included 19 patients (20 shoulders), with an average age of 48.9 years (range, 32-58 years; 16 men, 3 women). Preoperative diagnoses were osteoarthritis in 16 shoulders and osteonecrosis in 4 shoulders. Pre- and postoperative evaluations included physical examination, radiographic assessment, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, the Simple Shoulder Test, a pain visual analog scale, and patient satisfaction rating. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 32.7 months (range, 17-66 months). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 24.1 to 78.8, mean Simple Shoulder Test score from 3.95 to 9.3, mean visual analog scale score from 8.2 to 2.1, mean forward flexion from 100° to 129°, and mean external rotation from 23° to 43° (P < .001 for all). Radiographic follow-up showed no evidence of periprosthetic fracture, component loosening, osteolysis, or device failure. Patient shoulder self-assessment was 90% poor before surgery and improved to 75% good to excellent at last follow-up; 20% of patients self-rated as somewhat good to somewhat poor, and 5% self-rated as poor. Ninety percent of patients were satisfied with the choice of the procedure. Three patients had postoperative complications unrelated to the implants, including a partial rotator cuff tear treated with physical therapy, preexisting glenoid wear treated with arthroscopic debridement and microfracture, and infection complicated by subscapularis rupture requiring several subsequent surgical procedures but with retention of the implant. CONCLUSION: Humeral head inlay arthroplasty is effective in providing pain relief, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction. Rather than delaying shoulder arthroplasty to end-stage osteoarthritis, humeral head inlay arthroplasty is a promising new direction in primary shoulder arthroplasty for younger and active patients with earlier stage disease.