Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: Primary or delayed after failed treatment?

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has recently become an option for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) or as a salvage procedure after failure of another treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare primary RTSA with delayed RTSA in the treatment of displaced PHFs. STUDY DESIGN & METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with PHFs who were treated between May 2013 and December 2021 with primary or delayed RTSA after failure of conservative treatment or osteosynthesis. Clinical data were withdrawn from our local computerized database. Complications, active range of motion, as well as the functional outcome were recorded at the end of the follow-up period. Differences between clinical outcomes were analyzed using a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 70 individuals were included in this study (41 primary RTSA and 29 delayed RTSA). The mean of follow-up time was of 112 and 60 months, respectively. There were no differences between groups regarding fracture type according Neer Classification, ASA score or the presence of complications. Q-DASH and Oxford Shoulder scores were significantly better when patients underwent a primary RTSA (49.8 vs 31.4, p = 0.006 and 37.2 vs 27.5, p = 0.004 respectively). In addition, primary RTSA achieved more degrees of flexion and abduction than delayed RTSA (96.8 vs 72.9, p < 0.001 and 94.1 vs 69.3, p < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSION: Primary RTSA for PHFs achieved better functional outcomes and a wider range of motion when compared with delayed RTSA. However, primary and delayed RTSA have similar complication and reintervention rates. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: 3.

[Differences in the health and disease conditions in the rural and urban-suburban populations in Nuevo León state]. / Diferencias en las condiciones de salud y enfermedad en las poblaciones rurales y urbano-marginales en el estado de Nuevo León.

This work shows the results of two surveys taken in the state of Nuevo León, Mexico during 1985. The first survey, which covered morbidity and health service use, was taken from 759 households in urban/suburban Monterrey (a city of two million inhabitants and capital of the state of Nuevo León) and from 751 households from a stratified sample from the rest of the state. The second survey, which had to do with the different aspects of quality health services available, was given to 752 patients in 93 distinct health units in Monterrey and all over the state. The objectives of this publication are: 1) to describe the morbidity of the populations in question, as well as to describe the different aspects of the supply and demand of health services; 2) to compare the conditions of life reflected in the state of health between the rural and urban/suburban zones of Nuevo León. The results obtained show that those in the urban/suburban zones of Monterrey possess certain advantages over those in the rural areas in the state of Nuevo León such as: a higher level of schooling, lower emigration to the U.S.A., a lower fertility index, lower morbidity from severe illnesses and a lower death rate in children, wider coverage from health insurance, better communication between doctor and patient, more frequent use of health services, and greater participation in prevention programs. Rural area life has the following advantages: a lower number of cesarean sections, and a prolonged period of maternal suckling. In this work, we present the opinion that the primary health care currently centered in the urban zones, where the population is much greater, should not impair the required attention in the rural areas (areas that are more extensive and often unattended).