Skip to main content
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2020 Nov 13;99(46):e22914. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022914

Comparison of locking plates and intramedullary nails in treatment of three-part or four-part proximal humeral neck fractures in elderly population

A randomized trial protocol

Hua Song a,b, Mingming Wang b, Hongyang Du b, Weidong Mu c,
PMCID: PMC7668495  PMID: 33181658

Abstract

Background:

Locking plate and intramedullary nail are two commonly applied methods to fix proximal humeral fractures. There are limited randomized studies that specifically evaluate the results of proximal humeral neck fractures with three-part or four-part treated by locking plates or intramedullary nails. Our goal was to compare functional outcomes, complications, and imaging features between the two groups.

Methods:

This single-center, prospective, randomized controlled test will be conducted in Tengzhou Central People's Hospital. Patients with these conditions will be included: age between 55 and 80 years; are able to communicate normally and agree to participate in our study; with the radiological evidence of proximal humeral fractures with three-part or four-part; surgical treatment was performed within twenty-one days after the acute fracture. Consecutive patients with proximal humeral fractures will be stochastic to be dealt with a locking plate or a bone nail. The informed consent will be acquired in each patients. Two groups will use the same postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Clinical outcomes include Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, Constant-Murley score, Disability, Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, shoulder range of motion (such as external rotation), and postoperative complications. The significance level was defaulted as P < .05.

Results:

This study will provide a solid theoretical basis for exploring which technique is better in treatment of 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral neck fractures in elderly population.

Trial registration:

This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (number: researchregistry6047).

Keywords: Three or four-part, intramedullary nail, locking plate, proximal humeral neck fractures, study protocol

1. Introduction

Fractures of proximal humerus mostly occur in the elderly. With the aging of population becoming more and more serious, the incidence rate has raised by nearly 3 times in recent 30 years.[13] Especially the three-part and four-part of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly are extremely difficult to treat. There are a variety of treatments for displaced and unstable proximal humeral fractures. It is difficult for the medical community to reach a consensus on the optimal treatment of injuries.[48]

Locking plate and intramedullary nail are two commonly applied methods to fix proximal humeral fractures. With the development of science, the biological stability of steel plate and nail is equally excellent.[914] However, although the stability of plate fixation is high, the range of operation is large, which increases the risk of ischemic necrosis. The patient's rotator cuff may be torn, and the function of the nail may be damaged. Complications such as implant impact and secondary screw perforation are well known.[1518]

In current literature, there are limited randomized studies that specifically evaluate the results of proximal humeral neck fractures with three-part or four-part treated by locking plates or intramedullary nails. We thus designed a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 2 groups of patients treated with intramedullary nails and locking plates for three-part or four-part proximal humeral neck fractures in patients between 55 and 80 years. Our goal was to compare functional outcomes, complications, and imaging features between the two groups.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

Patients with these conditions will be included: age between 55 and 80 years; are able to communicate normally and agree to participate in our study; with the radiological evidence of proximal humeral fractures with three-part or four-part; surgical treatment was performed within 21 days after the acute fracture. The excluding criteria includes proximal humeral fractures with one-part or two-part; pathologic fractures or refractures; pseudarthrosis; open fractures; ipsilateral fracture of elbow or distal radius; existing disorders such as paraplegia, disseminated sclerosis, and other related neurological diseases; and acute fracture treated surgically over 21 days after the injury.

2.2. Study design

This single-center, prospective, randomized controlled test will be conducted in Tengzhou Central People's Hospital. Consecutive patients with proximal humeral fractures will be stochastic to be dealt with a locking plate or an bone nail. The protocol was admitted by institutional review committee of Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, with the number SD-T-C-9403. The informed consent will be acquired in each patient. This current trial proocol was recorded in the Research Registry, with the number researchregistry6047.

2.3. Randomization and blind

After baseline estimation and data capture, patients were stochastically divided into 2 groups by using a computer-created stochastic number table: intramedullary nail and locking plate treatment. Before the surgical operation, the circulating nurse will review the stochastic number table. Patients with even numbers were arranged to the intramedullary nail group and the patients with odd numbers were arranged to the locking plate group. The closed envelope contains the process of treatment assignments. During the whole study, all the researchers could not see the specific grouping of treatment assignments (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the study.

2.4. Surgical procedure

The patients will be operated under general anaesthesia. All surgical procedures will be done by the senior surgeon. For both methods, the patient is set in a beach chair position on a light transmitting table with standard armrests.

The traditional deltopectoral approach will be used in patients of locking plate group. Correct repair of the fracture site is performed under C-arm fluoroscopy, and then temporary Kirschner wire or reduction forceps is used to fix the fracture fragments. Locking plate is placed along the lateral edge of biceps groove at the proximal humerus. To prevent subacromial impact, the plate is placed 5 to 8 mm below the tip of the greater tubercle and 2 to 4 mm outside the biceps groove. The correct position of the plates and screws is identified by anteroposterior and axillary fluoroscopy.

The anterolateral approach will be used in patients of intramedullary nail group. A 4-cm-long incision will be made lateral to the acromion parallel to the Langer line. The insertion point was situated at the top of the humeral head, medial to the major tubercle, and lateral to the internodular sulcus. A Proximal Humeral Nail will be inserted without reaming after the fracture is fully reduced. The distal and proximal screws are implanted with assistance. Then the rotator cuff is restored, and the incision is sutured the absence of vacuum drainage.

2.5. Rehabilitation protocol

Two groups will use the same postoperative rehabilitation protocol. The outpatient physiotherapy program is arranged at 3 intervals, 10 times each time, lasting for 25 minutes a day. With the help of physiotherapists, passive protected area exercises begin on the first day after surgery. The limb was protected with sling for 4 weeks. Four to six weeks after the operation, they begin comprehensive active and active auxiliary exercise training. Intensive training began 3 months after operation. The patients are followed up at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and every three months thereafter. The fracture healing and the cervical trunk angle are evaluated by radiology.

2.6. Postoperative outcome evaluation

Clinical outcomes include Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, Constant-Murley score (CMS), Disability, Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, shoulder range of motion (such as external rotation), and postoperative complications. CMS is a multiple item functional scale used to assess pain, daily activities, range of motion, and shoulder strength. The range of the score is 0–100, indicating the worst and best shoulder function. DASH score is sensitive, reliable and effective in fracture patients, which is broadly applied to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of these patients. It consists of 30 questions, converted into one of 100 points. A higher score indicates greater disability. Image results will be obtained on two planes, and postoperative implant location, secondary humeral head displacement, osteonecrosis, nodule absorption, and secondary fixation failure will be evaluated. Implant malposition refers to the suboptimal implant position in postoperative imaging, without mechanical influences for shoulder function. Secondary fixation failure refers to severe loss of reduction during follow-up.

2.7. Statistical analysis and sample size calculation

Continuous data are expressed as mean and standard deviation, and classified data are expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. Student t test was used for continuous variables in normal distribution, and Mann Whitney U test was used for non-normal distribution. Categoric variables were dealt applying the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. The total number of complications was dealt considering the number of possible circumstances. The significance level was defaulted as P < .05.

The sample size was calculated based on an average difference of 10% between groups with constant Murley scores adjusted for age and gender. The standard deviation was 10 points, α was 5%, and the power was 80%. The sample size of 25 patients was required for each study group. To compensate for potential withdrawal during the follow-up period, each group included at least 32 patients.

3. Discussion

More than 50% of patients over the age of 60 developed complex three-part and four-part of proximal humerus fractures. Because of rotator cuff displacement, humeral head devascularization and osteoporosis, the management of these fractures is very difficult. Therefore, we designed a prospective randomized controlled trial of intramedullary nailing and locking plate in the treatment of three-part and four-part proximal humeral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 80 years. Our aim was to compare functional outcomes, imaging findings, and complications between the 2 groups.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Hua Song

Data curation: Hua Song, Mingming Wang

Formal analysis: Hua Song, Mingming Wang

Funding acquisition: Weidong Mu

Investigation: Hongyang Du

Project administration: Hongyang Du

Resources: Weidong Mu

Software: Mingming Wang

Supervision: Weidong Mu

Validation: Mingming Wang

Visualization: Hongyang Du

Writing – original draft: Hua Song

Writing – review & editing: Weidong Mu

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CMS = Constant-Murley score, DASH = disability, arm, shoulder and hand, JOA = Japanese orthopedic association, ODI = Oswestry disability index.

How to cite this article: Song H, Wang M, Du H, Mu W. Comparison of locking plates and intramedullary nails in treatment of three-part or four-part proximal humeral neck fractures in elderly population: A randomized trial protocol. Medicine. 2020;99:46(e22914).

This study is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81203476). The funders had no role in study design, decision for publication and preparation of the manuscript.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  • [1].Plath JE, Kerschbaum C, Seebauer T, et al. Locking nail versus locking plate for proximal humeral fracture fixation in an elderly population: a prospective randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Shi X, Liu H, Xing R, et al. Effect of intramedullary nail and locking plate in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture: an update systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2019;14:285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Li M, Wang Y, Zhang Y, et al. Intramedullary nail versus locking plate for treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis based on 1384 individuals. J Int Med Res 2018;46:4363–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Tamburrelli FC, Meluzio MC, Burrofato A, et al. Minimally invasive surgery procedure in isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2018;27:237–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Chen X, Yu ZX, Wang HY, et al. Proximal humeral internal locking plate combined with a custom neutral-position shoulder and elbow sling for proximal humerus fractures: a randomized study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e15271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Jabran A, Peach C, Zou Z, et al. Hybrid blade and locking plate fixation for proximal humerus fractures: a comparative biomechanical analysis. Biomed Eng Online 2018;17:10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Fletcher JWA, Windolf M, Richards RG, et al. Importance of locking plate positioning in proximal humeral fractures as predicted by computer simulations. Orthop Res 2019;37:957–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Panchal K, Jeong JJ, Park SE, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unstable proximal humeral fractures treated with a locking plate and fibular strut allograft. Int Orthop 2016;40:569–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Fan Y, Li YW, Zhang HB, et al. Management of humeral shaft fractures with intramedullary interlocking nail versus locking compression plate. Orthopedics 2015;38:e825–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].King PR, Ikram A, Eken MM, et al. The effectiveness of a flexible locked intramedullary nail and an anatomically contoured locked plate to treat clavicular shaft fractures: a 1-year randomized control trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:628–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Wang G, Mao Z, Zhang L, et al. Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 2015;10:122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Kloub M, Holub K, Urban J, et al. Intramedullary nailing of displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. Injury 2019;50:1978–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Chen YN, Chang CW, Lin CW, et al. Numerical investigation of fracture impaction in proximal humeral fracture fixation with locking plate and intramedullary nail. Int Orthop 2017;41:1471–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Ge W, Sun Q, Li G, et al. Efficacy comparison of intramedullary nails, locking plates and conservative treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. Clin Interv Aging 2017;12:2047–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Sun Q, Ge W, Li G, et al. Locking plates versus intramedullary nails in the management of displaced proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2018;42:641–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Çalbiyik M, Ipek D. Use of volar locking plate versus intramedullary nailing for fixation of distal radius fractures: a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:602–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Gracitelli ME, Malavolta EA, Assunção JH, et al. Locking intramedullary nails compared with locking plates for two- and three-part proximal humeral surgical neck fractures: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:695–703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Boudard G, Pomares G, Milin L, et al. Locking plate fixation versus antegrade nailing of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in patients without osteoporosis. Comparative retrospective study of 63 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:917–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES