Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

A novel “7 sutures and 8 knots” surgical technique in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: tuberosity healing improves short-term clinical results

Abstract

Background

Complex proximal humeral fractures (cPHFs) represent an important public health concern, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has emerged as a feasible treatment option in the elderly with high functional demands. Recent studies have shown that tuberosity healing leads to better clinical outcomes and an improved range of motion. However, the best surgical technique for the management of the tuberosities is still a topic of debate. The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to report the radiographic and clinical outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent RSA for cPHFs using a novel “7 sutures and 8 knots” technique.

Materials and methods

A consecutive series of 32 patients (33 shoulders) were treated with this technique by a single surgeon from January 2017 to September 2021. Results at a minimum follow-up of 12 months and a mean ± SD follow-up of 35.9 ± 16.2 (range 12–64) months are reported.

Results

The tuberosity union rate was 87.9% (29 out of 33 shoulders), the mean Constant score was 66.7 ± 20.5 (range 29–100) points, and the mean DASH score was 33.4 ± 22.6 (range 2–85) points.

Conclusions

The “7 sutures and 8 knots” technique, which relies on three sutures around the implant and five bridging sutures between the tuberosities, is a relatively simple procedure which provides a reliable means for anatomic restoration of the tuberosities and allows functional recovery of the shoulder in elderly patients with cPHFs treated with RSA.

Level of evidence: IV; retrospective atudy.

Trial registration: At our institution, no institutional review board nor ethical committee approval is necessary for retrospective studies.

Introduction

Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are the seventh most commonly observed fractures in adults and account for 4–10% of all fracture types. A bimodal distribution has been described: PHFs occur in elderly patients with decreased bone strength after low-energy traumas, while most high-energy injuries involve patients under the age of 55 [1]. PHF incidence is rising in the elderly, especially in women, and it now constitutes the third most common osteoporotic fracture [2,3,4]. The choice of the most effective treatment option for PHFs should take into account the fracture morphology, patient co-morbidities and functional expectations, and it should aim to achieve a pain-free functional shoulder [2, 5]. Also, since PHFs in the elderly are fragility fractures, regardless of the treatment option, a multidisciplinary approach such as a fracture liaison service is fundamental in order to reduce the risk of further fractures [6]. A variety of surgical options can be employed, including closed reduction and percutaneous fixation, closed or open reduction and internal fixation [7], and arthroplasty [3]. Non-operative treatment is generally accepted for undisplaced or minimally displaced PHFs, or for displaced fractures in the elderly with low functional demands or who are not cleared for surgery [3, 4, 8]. The most appropriate treatment for complex PHFs (cPHFs) in the elderly is still a topic of debate, as concomitant osteoporosis and significant comminution prevent the achievement of stable fixation, so they may benefit from arthroplasty rather than osteosynthesis [2, 9, 10]. Historically, hemiarthroplasty (HA) was considered the preferred choice for operative treatment of cPHFs [11, 12]; nevertheless, its outcomes are heterogeneous, so reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has emerged as an alternative treatment option [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The main theoretical advantage of RSA is that tuberosity healing and cuff rotator integrity are not prerequisites for a satisfactory outcome since RSA primarily depends on the deltoid muscle to restore shoulder function [3, 14, 15, 17, 19,20,21]. Nevertheless, it has been shown that tuberosity healing leads to better functional results and active motion, even in RSA [21,22,23,24,25,26]. This is due to the influence of the volume of the greater tuberosity in restoring the lateral offset, improving the deltoid wrapping over the RSA, and maintaining the function of the subscapularis.  As a result, recent efforts to enhance the tuberosity healing rate have been made [24, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35], but a gold standard technique has not been identified.

In the present paper, we present the results of a retrospective observational study conducted on patients older than 65 years of age who underwent RSA for cPHFs with the application of a novel “7 sutures and 8 knots” tuberosity fixation technique to achieve better tuberosity healing.

Materials and methods

Study design

A retrospective and observational study was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a cPHF categorized as a Neer three- or four-part fracture, a head-splitting fracture, or with more than 40% of the joint surface head involved; (2) a cPHF occurring in a patient over 65 years of age; (3) a cPHF treated with RSA, a fracture-specific stem, and a standardized novel technique of tuberosity fixation including bone grafting between the metaphyseal part of the stem and the tuberosities performed by a single surgeon; and (4) a minimum clinical and radiological follow-up of 12 months. Patients with previous failed open reduction and internal fixation for PHFs, patients undergoing revision surgery, and patients whose tuberosity comminution did not allow fixation were excluded. At our Institution, no ethical committee nor institutional review board approval is necessary for retrospective studies, and all patients gave their informed consent to data collection and their anonymous use for scientific and teaching purposes.

Surgical procedure

All surgeries were performed by the same senior surgeon with great experience in the RSA procedure performed both for trauma and chronic pathologies. The same prosthesis was implanted in all cases (Equinoxe Reverse-Fracture System Prosthesis; Exactech Inc., Gainesville, FL, USA). All fractures were evaluated by plain radiographs and then further assessed via computed tomography scans with the multiplanar reconstruction technique. A deltopectoral approach was used in all cases. After identifying the fracture planes, the greater and lesser tuberosities were detected and tagged within the context of the tendons (the infraspinatus and teres minor and the subscapularis, respectively) with #2 nonabsorbable sutures (Fig. 1, green threads). The tenotomy of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon was performed. In cases where the supraspinatus tendon was still attached to the greater tuberosity, it was removed, leaving the posterior portion of the rotator cuff intact to facilitate greater tuberosity reduction to the humeral stem during repair. If the bicipital groove was still intact, the tuberosities were separated from each other using a chisel. The glenoid was prepared first after careful retraction of the tuberosities. Reaming of the glenoid surface was performed with a cannulated reamer inserted over a guidewire, and a hole for the central peg was drilled. A standard glenoid baseplate was implanted and secured with the required number of screws, followed by the glenosphere. Whenever possible, pre-operative planning and intraoperative navigation were employed, as previously described [36, 37]. Next, the humeral canal was prepared, and the appropriate fracture stem size was chosen and cemented in 25° of retroversion, being careful to limit the cement to the meta-diaphyseal level. Placing the humeral stem in such retroversion causes the major fin of the stem to be placed at the bicipital groove so that the tuberosity reconstruction can be as anatomical as possible. Before placing the stem, a #2 high-strength suture was passed through the medial fenestration of the prosthesis and around the stem (Fig. 1A, blue thread). Two drill holes were made in the humeral diaphysis before the hardening of the cement, and then two needles were inserted and left in place during cement polymerization to prevent their obstruction (Fig. 2). This expedient is used to avoid possible fragmentation of the cement mantle with subsequent drilling. A #2 high-strength suture was passed into each drill hole and through the superior part of the subscapularis tendon and the external rotator tendon, respectively (Fig. 1A, pink threads). Then, a #2 nonabsorbable suture was passed horizontally through the external rotator tendon, the two cranial holes of the major fin, and again through the tendon (Fig. 1A, orange thread). A similar technique was employed for the subscapularis tendon, engaging the two distal holes of the prosthesis’s major fin (Fig. 1A, yellow thread). Figure 1B shows an intraoperative image of the sutures.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Tuberosity fixation around the prosthetic stem. The relevance of the thread colours is explained in the main text. A Graphical illustration of the suture threads. B Intra-operative image of the suture threads

Fig. 2
figure 2

A needle is inserted into the drill hole in the humeral diaphysis before the hardening of the cement to prevent the obstruction of the needle (white arrows)

At this point, a cancellous bone graft harvested from the humeral head was placed underneath and next to the major fin of the prosthesis and the tuberosities were secured with eight knots according to the technique illustrated in Fig. 3A, with the seven sutures placed previously. First, the greater and the lesser tuberosities were stabilized on the tuberosity bed (two knots in total, a knot for each tuberosity, yellow and orange threads) and then further tightened together with the medial thread of each suture (one knot). At this point, the two vertical sutures were secured, one for each tuberosity, and then knotted together (three knots in total, pink threads). Thereafter, the sutures used to detect and tag the tuberosities were tied together (a single knot with all four ends of the sutures, green threads). Lastly, the horizontal suture that had been passed through the medial fenestration of the prosthesis and behind the stem was knotted (one knot, blue thread), to further compress the tuberosities onto the stem and onto the humeral shaft (Fig. 3B). To control bleeding, in the absence of contraindications, tranexamic acid was administered both intravenously and locally, as previously described [38]. One suction drain was left in place for 24 h.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Knotting technique for the tuberosities around the prosthetic stem. The relevance of the thread colours is explained in the main text. A Graphical illustration of the knots (the colours correspond to the graphical representation in Fig. 1A). B Intra-operative image of the knots

Post-operative care

The same standardized post-operative protocol was used in all patients to minimize possible differences in the functional outcome due to differences in rehabilitation. The arm was rested in a neutral rotation sling in 45° abduction for 4 weeks to minimize tension on the tuberosities and enhance their union. Active and passive range of motion (ROM) of the elbow and the wrist was allowed. The sling was removed at 4 weeks and rehabilitation of the shoulder with a physiotherapist began. Passive ROM exercises in forward elevation and abduction were encouraged at 4 weeks, while active exercises were allowed at 5 weeks. External and internal rotation and strengthening exercises were not allowed until 6 weeks from surgery. No heavy lifting was allowed until 9 weeks post-operatively, and a return to all activities was permitted at 3 months post-operatively.

Clinical and radiological assessment

All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery and then annually. Shoulder function was assessed using the Constant scoring systems [39], and active ROM was recorded in forward elevation, abduction, and external and internal rotation. Overall subjective patient satisfaction was evaluated through a four-grade rating scale (very disappointed, disappointed, satisfied and very satisfied) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scoring system [40]. Plain radiographs in the true antero-posterior view (Grashey projection) of the shoulder with a standardized “shoulder protocol” (65–70 kV, 16 mAs) were obtained at each visit. The greater tuberosity was considered healed when it was visible on the X-rays (Grashey projection in neutral rotation) and fused to the humeral shaft. Glenoid notching was evaluated according to the Nerot–Sirveaux classification [41].

Results

A series of 32 consecutive patients (33 shoulders) met the inclusion criteria: there were 6 males (18.2%) and 26 females (27 shoulders) (81.8%) with a mean (± standard deviation, SD) age of 77.1 ± 7.3 (range 65–92) years who were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 35.9 ± 16.2 (range 12–64) months after surgery.

Intra-operatively, a standard glenoid baseplate was implanted in each case and secured with a mean of 2.4 ± 0.8 (range 2–5) screws with an average length of 31.4 ± 4.4 (range 22–42) mm. The diameter of the glenosphere was chosen to optimally fit the patient’s anatomy: a 38-mm-diameter glenosphere was used in most of the cases (24 shoulders), a 36-mm-diameter glenosphere was used in smaller subjects (5 shoulders, all females), and a 42-mm-diameter glenosphere was used for larger shoulders (4 males). Post-operative anaemia requiring blood transfusion occurred in 15 patients (46.9%), and a patient suffered from a Clostridium difficile infection. Inferior glenoid notching (grade 1) was observed in only one patient. Patients were hospitalized for a mean of 8.0 ± 4.3 (range 3–26) days.

The mean ± SD active forward elevation was 129° ± 31° (range 60–180°), the mean abduction was 118° ± 27° (range 70–160°), the mean external rotation was 37° ± 8° (range 23–55°), and the mean internal rotation was 6 ± 3 (range 2–10) points on a converted scale which corresponded to reaching the L1–L3 vertebral level. Only one patient achieved less than 90° of forward elevation. The mean Constant score was 66.7 ± 20.5 (range 29–100) points, and the mean DASH score was 33.4 ± 22.6 (range 2–85) points. At the last follow-up, most patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the results of the surgical procedure. Only three patients (9.1%) were disappointed, and none was very disappointed. Despite the advanced ages of the patients, the use of the “7 sutures and 8 knots” technique plus an autologous bone graft added to a specific reverse shoulder fracture stem resulted in a high tuberosity healing rate and good functional outcomes. Twenty-nine out of 33 shoulders (87.9%) had complete tuberosity healing (Fig. 4), while four patients (12.1%) presented tuberosity resorption. Although not statistically significant, the healed tuberosities group showed better clinical and radiographical results with respect to the non-healed tuberosities group. Overall demographics and functional outcomes for the 33 shoulders are summarized in Table 1, while differences in functional results between the two groups are summarized in Table 2.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Complete healing of the tuberosities was observed in 85% of the cases at follow-up

Table 1 Overall demographics and functional outcomes (33 shoulders)
Table 2 Functional results according to tuberosity healing

Discussion

Anatomical tuberosity healing and rotator cuff integrity have been shown to be essential for good functional recovery after HA for PHFs [41,42,43]. The unreliable results achieved with HA in the elderly suffering from cPHFs led to attempts to treat these patients with RSA, since the functional outcomes are less dependent on tuberosity healing and cuff integrity [13,14,15, 19, 20, 44, 45]. However, recent studies have demonstrated that although tuberosity healing is not a prerequisite for a satisfactory outcome after RSA for cPHFs, it still leads to better clinical results [21,22,23,24,25,26,27, 46, 47]. It has been proven that tuberosity osteotomy or excision is associated with worse functional results, with particular reference to a loss of external rotation and to a higher risk of RSA instability [27, 48]. The main advantage is better deltoid wrapping, which helps to improve both the function and the stability of the prosthesis [49]. In order to improve the tuberosity healing rate, many surgical techniques have been investigated, but a gold standard reinsertion technique has not been identified [23, 25]. Despite the lack of consensus, it appears from a recent metanalysis [25] that the main fixation method relies on the combination of vertical and horizontal fixation with or without cerclage. Other than the suture techniques and construct, the use of a fracture-specific humeral stem with a large ingrowth surface for tuberosity healing, space for a bone graft and partial cementation techniques could also enhance tuberosity healing [23].

The most pertinent findings of the present study are that tuberosity healing in RSA for cPHFs can be obtained, even in the elderly, by employing a standardized surgical technique, and that tuberosity healing leads to an improved functional outcome and increased patient satisfaction, even if these are not statistically significantly enhanced according to the present data. The pivotal points of this novel surgical technique are the use of a standardized and reproducible tuberosity suture technique, the use of a fracture-specific prosthetic stem associated with an autologous bone graft (harvested from the fractured head), and the application of a partial cementation technique. In our opinion, of paramount importance for obtaining a high tuberosity healing rate is “friendly” tuberosity management, with an optimal balance between the tension and elasticity of the construct. The present “7 sutures and 8 knots” technique employs three high-strength sutures combined with four nonabsorbable sutures and aims to achieve this correct balance, which can favour a high healing rate. In addition, as the geometry of the stem affects the bone integration around it [23, 24, 42], a fracture-specific prosthesis was implanted in all cases. By reducing the proximal metal surface, a larger ingrowth surface is obtained, which can allow better reduction of the tuberosities to the stem and to each other and the use of an autologous bone graft, which may further enhance bone healing [23, 25, 26, 50]. Given the poor bone quality in the elderly, our preference is to cement the stem in all patients. According to previous studies reported in the literature [23, 25, 30, 51], the advantages of cementation include a low rate of iatrogenic fracture, the ability to provide optimal initial stability of the implant and fixation independent from osteogenesis, and the anti-infection ability of the antibiotic-loaded bone cement. However, direct thermal reactions and disturbance of the local blood flow might inhibit tuberosity healing. Accordingly, we limited the cementation to the meta-diaphyseal humeral portion, as suggested by Singh et al. [52].

Despite the advanced age of our study group, fixation of the tuberosities associated with an autologous bone graft and the use of a fracture-specific stem and the partial cementation technique resulted in a high rate of tuberosity healing (> 85%). Our results confirm those of Grubhofer et al. [53], Boileau et al. [24], and Levy and Badman [54], who all observed a similar tuberosity healing rate (> 84%). In the present study, neither shoulder instability nor loosening were reported within the study period, which is consistent with previous studies that also underlined the importance of achieving tuberosity healing to prevent such complications [14, 24].

The present series demonstrates that the restoration of a better active ROM and better subjective results can be expected after tuberosity reconstruction and healing. Among the four patients in whom the tuberosities did not heal, two were disappointed with the results of the surgical procedure and complained about difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) which required active forward elevation or rotations. On the other hand, only one patient with healed tuberosities complained about difficulties with ADLs, probably because the dominant shoulder was involved by the fracture and the contralateral one was affected by a severe cuff arthropathy.

This study has limitations. First, it is a retrospective study with a relatively small sample size: it may be difficult to correctly generalize the obtained data. Moreover, the relatively short follow-up could underestimate additional functional improvement or complications beyond 1 year post-operatively. However, no dislocations were observed, which is the primary early complication after RSA for cPHFs (it typically occurs within the first 3 months post-operatively) [22]. Second, this novel technique has been shown to be reproducible, but there may be occurrences where it is not feasible. Extreme tuberosity comminution and therefore a complete lack of bone could prevent the use of such a suturing technique, even though, in our experience, we were not able to employ the “7 sutures and 8 knots” technique in only a single case after we standardized it. On that occasion, we tried to reconstruct the tuberosities with bone cement to guarantee implant stability.

RSA has been demonstrated to be a feasible surgical option to treat cPHFs in the elderly and, although its function relies mainly on the deltoid muscle, reattaching the tuberosities leads to better functional and clinical outcomes. However, there is no consensus regarding the best surgical technique to obtain the highest rate of tuberosity consolidation. The present study shows that the “7 sutures and 8 knots” technique is a relatively straightforward and reproducible method, and, given the results (a tuberosity consolidation rate of > 85%), it is possible to affirm that—despite the above-mentioned limitations—it can provide an excellent success rate, considering both the mean age and the poor bone quality of the study group and the previous results reported in the literature.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ADLs:

Activities of daily living

cPHFs:

Complex proximal humerus fractures

DASH score:

Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score

HA:

Hemiarthroplasty

ROM:

Range of motion

RSA:

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Iglesias-Rodríguez S, Domínguez-Prado DM, García-Reza A et al (2021) Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02551-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Antonios T, Bakti N, Phadkhe A, Gulihar A, Singh B (2020) Outcomes following arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma 11:S31–S36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.07.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klug A, Gramlich Y, Wincheringer D, Schmidt-Horlohé K, Hoffmann R (2019) Trends in surgical management of proximal humeral fractures in adults: a nationwide study of records in Germany from 2007 to 2016. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139(12):1713–1721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03252-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beks RB, Ochen Y, Frima H et al (2018) Operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(8):1526–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murray IR, Amin AK, White TO, Robinson CM (2011) Proximal humeral fractures: current concepts in classification, treatment and outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B 93 B(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.25702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caffarelli C, Mondanelli N, Crainz E, Giannotti S, Frediani B, Gonnelli S (2022) The phenotype of bone turnover in patients with fragility hip fracture: experience in a fracture liaison service population. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(12):7362. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Pavone V, Vescio A, Denaro R et al (2021) Use of different plate implants for surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in adults: a systematic review. Acta Biomed 92(4):e2021198. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92i4.11394

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Antonios T, Bakti N, Nzeako O, Mohanlal P, Singh B (2019) Outcomes following fixation for proximal humeral fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma 10(3):468–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.029

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopiz Y, García-Fernandez C, Vallejo-Carrasco M et al (2022) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly. Cemented or uncemented stem? Int Orthop 46(3):635–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05284-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dines DM, Tuckman D, Dines JS (2002) Hemiarthroplasty for complex four-part fracture of the proximal humerus: technical considerations and surgical technique. Univ Pennsyl Orthop J 15:29–36

  11. Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ et al (2015) Surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures—a systematic review of 92 studies including 4500 patients. J Orthop Trauma 29(1):54–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jonsson E, Ekholm C, Salomonsson B et al (2021) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides better shoulder function than hemiarthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in patients aged 70 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 30(5):994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.10.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Austin DC, Torchia MT, Cozzolino NH, Jacobowitz LE, Bell JE (2019) Decreased reoperations and improved outcomes with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in comparison to hemiarthroplasty for geriatric proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 33(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gallinet D, Ohl X, Decroocq L, Dib C, Valenti P, Boileau P (2018) Is reverse total shoulder arthroplasty more effective than hemiarthroplasty for treating displaced proximal humerus fractures in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104(6):759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang J, Zhu Y, Zhang F, Chen W, Tian Y, Zhang Y (2016) Meta-analysis suggests that reverse shoulder arthroplasty in proximal humerus fractures is a better option than hemiarthroplasty in the elderly. Int Orthop 40(3):531–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2811-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shukla DR, McAnany S, Kim J, Overley S, Parsons BO (2016) Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(2):330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.08.030

  17. Ceri L, Mondanelli N, Sangaletti R, Bottai V, Muratori F, Giannotti S (2019) Simultaneous bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty for bilateral four-part fracture of the proximal humerus in an elderly patient: a case report. Trauma Case Rep 23:100242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcr.2019.100242

  18. Mattei L, Mortera S, Arrigoni C, Castoldi F (2015) Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: an update on indications, technique, results and complication rates. Joints 3(2):72–77

  19. Jobin CM, Galdi B, Anakwenze OA, Ahmad CS, Levine WN (2015) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of proximal humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 23(3):190–201. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-13-00190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chernchujit B, Prasetia R (2018) The role of teriparatide in tuberosity healing after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in complex proximal humeral fragility fracture. J Orthopaedic Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499017754104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chun YM, Kim DS, Lee DH, Shin SJ (2017) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for four-part proximal humerus fracture in elderly patients: can a healed tuberosity improve the functional outcomes? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(7):1216–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.11.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ohl X, Bonnevialle N, Gallinet D et al (2018) How the greater tuberosity affects clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(12):2139–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.05.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jain NP, Mannan SS, Dharmarajan R, Rangan A (2019) Tuberosity healing after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients—does it improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28(3):e78–e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Boileau P, Alta TD, Decroocq L et al (2019) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures in the elderly: is it worth reattaching the tuberosities? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28(3):437–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. He SK, Liao JP, Guo JH, Huang FG (2021) Fracture-dedicated prosthesis promotes the healing rate of greater tuberosity in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Front Surg 8(December):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.616104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gunst S, Louboutin L, Swan J, Lustig S, Servien E, Nove-Josserand L (2021) Does healing of both greater and lesser tuberosities improve functional outcome after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture? A retrospective study of twenty-eight cases with a computed tomography scan at a minimum of one-year follow-up. Int Orthop 45(3):681–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04928-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Simovitch RW, Roche CP, Jones RB et al (2019) Effect of tuberosity healing on clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty for 3-and 4-part proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 33(2):E39–E45. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Imiolczyk JP, Moroder P, Scheibel M (2021) Fracture-specific and conventional stem designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fractures—a retrospective, observational study. J Clin Med 10(2):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020175

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Grubhofer F, Bachmann E, Gerber C et al (2021) Cow-hitch-suture cerclage for fixation of the greater tuberosity in fracture RTSA. JSES Int 5(2):270–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.10.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Formaini NT, Everding NG, Levy JC, Rosas S (2015) Tuberosity healing after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fractures: the “black and tan” technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(11):e299–e306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sasanuma H, Iijima Y, Saito T et al (2020) Clinical results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for comminuted proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients: a comparison between nonporous stems versus trabecular metal stems. JSES Int 4(4):952–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.08.010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Garofalo R, Flanagin B, Castagna A, Lo EY, Krishnan SG (2015) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture using a dedicated stem: radiological outcomes at a minimum 2 years of follow-up-case series. J Orthop Surg Res 10(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0261-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fortané T, Beaudouin E, Lateur G et al (2020) Tuberosity healing in reverse shoulder arthroplasty in traumatology: use of an offset modular system with bone graft. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106(6):1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.04.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Uzer G, Yildiz F, Batar S et al (2017) Does grafting of the tuberosities improve the functional outcomes of proximal humeral fractures treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Takayama K, Yamada S, Kobori Y, Shiode H (2022) The clinical outcomes and tuberosity healing after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fracture using the turned stem tension band technique. J Orthop Sci 27(2):372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOS.2020.12.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moreschini F, Colasanti GB, Cataldi C, Mannelli L, Mondanelli N, Giannotti S (2020) Pre-operative CT-based planning integrated with intra-operative navigation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: data acquisition and analysis protocol, and preliminary results of navigated versus conventional surgery. Dose-Response 18(4):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325820970832

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Colasanti GB, Moreschini F, Cataldi C, Mondanelli N, Giannotti S (2020) GPS guided reverse shoulder arthroplasty: an anatomic dissection study. Acta Biomed 91:204–208. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i4-S.9377

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. De Falco L, Troiano E, Cesari M et al (2021) Intra-operative local plus systemic tranexamic acid significantly decreases post-operative bleeding and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion in total knee arthroplasty. Med Glas (Zenica) 18(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.17392/1327-21

  39. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJH, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P (2008) A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E et al (2003) Italian version of the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg 28 B(2):179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-7681(02)00303-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D et al (2004) Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg 86:388–395. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B3

  42. Werthel JD, Sirveaux F, Block D (2018) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in recent proximal humerus fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104(6):779–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ross M, Hope B, Stokes A, Peters SE, McLeod I, Duke PFR (2015) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three-part and four-part proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(2):215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pizzo RA, Gianakos AL, Haring RS et al (2021) Are arthroplasty procedures really better in the treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures? A comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Trauma 35(3):111–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schairer WW, Nwachukwu BU, Lyman S, Craig EV, Gulotta LV (2015) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(10):1560–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schmalzl J, Jessen M, Holschen M et al (2020) Tuberosity healing improves functional outcome following primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures with a 135° prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 30(5):909–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-020-02649-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sabah Y, Decroocq L, Gauci MO et al (2021) Clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute fracture in the elderly. Int Orthop 45(7):1775–1781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05050-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sabesan VJ, Lima DJL, Yang Y, Stankard MC, Drummond M, Liou WW (2020) The role of greater tuberosity healing in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29(2):347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Reuther F, Petermann M, Stangl R (2019) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in acute fractures of the proximal humerus: does tuberosity healing improve clinical outcomes? J Orthop Trauma 33(2):E46–E51. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schmalzl J, Jessen M, Sadler N, Lehmann LJ, Gerhardt C (2020) High tuberosity healing rate associated with better functional outcome following primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures with a 135° prosthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3060-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Keener JD, Patterson BM, Orvets N, Aleem AW, Chamberlain AM (2018) Optimizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty component position in the setting of advanced arthritis with posterior glenoid erosion: a computer-enhanced range of motion analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(2):339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Singh A, Padilla M, Nyberg E et al (2016) Cement technique correlates with tuberosity healing in hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(3):437–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Grubhofer F, Wieser K, Meyer DC et al (2016) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute head-splitting, 3- and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(10):1690–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Levy JC, Badman B (2011) Reverse shoulder prosthesis for acute four-part fracture: tuberosity fixation using a horseshoe graft. J Orthop Trauma 25(5):318–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0B013E3181F22088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ET, GP, GBC and NM wrote, reviewed and edited the paper. ET and IC performed data acquisition, collection and analysis, interpreted the data, and drafted the work. NM and SG conceptualized the study and wrote and reviewed the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors agreed to be accountable for alla aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Mondanelli.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

At our institution, no institutional review board nor ethical committee approval is necessary for retrospective studies.

Consent for publication

All patients gave their informed consent to data collection and their anonymous use for scientific and teaching purposes.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Troiano, E., Peri, G., Calò, I. et al. A novel “7 sutures and 8 knots” surgical technique in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: tuberosity healing improves short-term clinical results. J Orthop Traumatol 24, 18 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-023-00697-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-023-00697-4

Keywords