Functional Outcome and Complications Following PHILOS Plate Fixation inProximal Humeral Fractures

Authors

  • Shafqat Hussain Department of Orthopedics, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Mehmood Hussain Department of Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital/ National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Ali Arslan Munir Department of Anesthesia, CMH Institute of Medical Sciences Bahawalpur/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
  • Sundus Jabeen Army Medical College/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Muhammad Noman Iqbal Department of Orthopedics, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74iSUPPL-2.10439

Keywords:

Interlocking system, locking plate, Proximal humeral fracture, PHILOS.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess the functional outcome following plate fixation with the Proximal Humeral
Internal Locking System and to study complications associated with it.
Study design: Prospective longitudinal study.
Place and duration of study: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, for 14
months from 01 Sep 2021 – 31 Oct 2022.
Methodology: A total of 75 patients participated in this study. Patients included in the study were aged 18 years or above with
displaced proximal Humeral fractures. Patients were selected from in-patient department. They were explained the purpose of
the study and those who consented to participate in the study were enrolled through a written consent form. Proximal
Humeral Interlocking system was applied under general anesthesia. Follow up at 01 months, 03 months and 06 months was
carried out for functional outcome & complications if any.
Results: A total of 75 patients were registered in this study. Average age of cohort was 42.05±15.83 years with 46 males and 29
females. At 06 months the mean Constant score of the cohort was 58.96±6.44 and mean ASES score was 60.15±8.08. Most
common complication seen was superficial wound site infection with a frequency of 6(8%) that was resolved with dressing.
Conclusion: Functional outcome of Proximal Humeral Fractures managed with Interlocking system is very effective, though it
declines with age.
Early mobilization of shoulder joint is achievable without compromising union of fracture segments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Städele H, Messmer P, Morlock MM,

Schneider E, et al. Effect of cortical thickness and cancellous

bone density on the holding strength of internal fixator screws. J

Orthop Res 2004; 22: 1237-42.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthres.2004.04.001

Saber AY, Said UN, Abdelmonem AH. Surgical Fixation of

Three- and Four-Part Proximal Humeral Fractures Using the

Proximal Humeral Interlocking System Plate. Cureus 2022; 14(5):

e25348. Published 2022 May 26.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.25348

Canale ST, Azar FM, Beaty JH. Open reduction and internal

fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking

proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter,

observational study. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics.

Elsevier; 2017.

Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P. Constant-Murley Score:

systematic review and standardized evaluation in different

shoulder pathologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1320–1328.

Vrotsou K, Ávila M, Machón M, Mateo-Abad M, Pardo Y, Garin

O et al. Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and

standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies. Qual

Life Res 2018; 27(9): 2217-2226.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7

Jabran A, Peach C, Ren L. Biomechanical analysis of plate

systems for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic literature

review. Biomed Eng Online 2018; 17(1): 47. Published 2018 Apr

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0479-3

Windolf M, Knierzinger D, Nijs S. In Vitro Testing and Clinical

Handling of a Novel Implant Positioning Technology for

Proximal Humeral Plating. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023; 59(3): 450.

https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59030450

Laux CJ, Grubhofer F, Werner CML, Simmen HP, Osterhoff G.

Current concepts in locking plate fixation of proximal humerus

fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 2017; 12(1): 137.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0639-3

Plath JE, Kerschbaum C, Seebauer T. Locking nail versus locking

plate for proximal humeral fracture fixation in an elderly

population: a prospective randomised controlled trial. BMC

Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20(1): 20.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2399-1

Vidović D, Benčić I, Cuti T. Treatment of humeral shaft

fractures: antegrade interlocking intramedullary nailing with

additional interlocking neutralization screws through fracture

site. Acta Clin Croat 2019; 58(4): 632-638.

https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2019.58.04.10

Jabran A, Peach C, Ren L. Biomechanical analysis of plate

systems for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic literature

review. Biomed Eng Online 2018; 17(1): 47.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0479-3

Shi X, Liu H, Xing R. 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;

(1): 285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1345-0

Oldrini LM, Feltri P, Albanese J, Marbach F, Filardo G, Candrian

C, et al. PHILOS Synthesis for Proximal Humerus Fractures Has

High Complications and Reintervention Rates: A Systematic

Review and Meta-Analysis. Life (Basel) 2022; 12(2): 311.

https://doi.org/10.3390/life12020311

Li M, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Yang M, Zhang P, Jiang B, 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(11): 4363-4376.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518781666

Chen X, Yu ZX, Wang HY. 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(17): e15271.

https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015271

Zyto K, Ahrengart L, Sperber A, Törnkvist H. Treatment of

displaced proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone

Joint Surg Br 1997; 79(3): 412-7.

https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.79b3.7419

Movin T, Sjödén GO, Ahrengart L. Poor function after shoulder

replacement in fracture patients. A retrospective evaluation of 29

patients followed for 2-12 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69(4):

-6.

https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679808999053

Frigg R. Development of the Locking Compression Plate. Injury

; 34 Suppl 2: B6-10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.020.

Saber AY, Said UN, Abdelmonem AH, Elsayed H, Taha M,

Hussein W, et al. Surgical Fixation of Three- and Four-Part

Proximal Humeral Fractures Using the Proximal Humeral

Interlocking System Plate. Cureus 2022; 14(5): e25348.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.25348

Downloads

Published

30-09-2024

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

1.
Hussain S, Hussain M, Munir AA, Jabeen S, Iqbal MN. Functional Outcome and Complications Following PHILOS Plate Fixation inProximal Humeral Fractures. Pak Armed Forces Med J [Internet]. 2024 Sep. 30 [cited 2025 Feb. 22];74(SUPPL-2):S247-S251. Available from: https://pafmj.org/PAFMJ/article/view/10439