Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Table 2 Frequency of treatment modalities with demographic data and fracture type distribution of each group

From: Failure and revision rates of proximal humeral fracture treatment with the use of a standardized treatment algorithm at a level-1 trauma center

Treatment modality

No. of patients

% of entire cohort (%)

Gender

m = male

Mean age (range) years

Fracture types (% within the treatment group)

Non-operative

96

22.7

76 F

20 M

70.5

(43–102)

n = 25 isolated tuberosity fractures (26%)

n = 24 subcapital 2-part fractures (25%)

n = 32 3-part fractures (33.3%)

n = 15 complex fractures (15.6%)

Locked nailing

45

10.6

32 F

13 M

74

(31–92)

n = 23 subcapital 2-part fractures (51.1%)

n = 20 3-part fractures (44.4%)

n = 2 complex fractures (4.4%)

Locked plating

211

49.9

148 F

63 M

64.4

(28–92)

n = 4 isolated tuberosity fractures (1.9%)

n = 11 subcapital 2-part fractures (5.2%)

n = 119 3-part fractures (56.4%)

n = 77 complex fractures (36.5%)

Hemi-fracture prosthesis

29

6.9

19 F

10 M

64.7

(43–84)

n = 3 3-part fractures (10.3%)

n = 26 complex fractures (89.7%)

Reverse fracture prosthesis

42

9.9

37 F

5 M

78.9

(62–95)

n = 4 3-part fractures (9.5%)

n = 38 complex fractures (90.5%)

  1. F female, M male