Published in Seminars in Orthopaedics. Vol 3, No 3 (September) 1988 pp 184-196
TRADITIONALLY the management of fractures of the proximal humerus and fracture-dislocations of the shoulder has been conservative, with only a limited indication for internal fixation. The reason for this has been a general satisfaction with the outcome of nonoperatively managed proximal humeral fractures. In 1970, Dr
... [Show full abstract] Charles Neer II from New York produced his classic report on the classification and evaluation of displaced proximal humeral fractures, together with a second report on the treatment of three-part and four-part displacement of proximal humeral fractures. This provoked a swing of the pendulum in favour of more aggressive surgical treatment, in particular the use of hemiarthroplasty. By the late 1970s, however, there was increasing disillusion with the use of hemiarthroplasty for the more severe fractures. In 1977, Kraulis and Hunter, reported a Canadian series of 11 cases treated according to the Neer guidelines with much poorer results: nine unsatisfactory results from 11 cases treated. Similarly, in 1985, Willems and Lim from Holland also highlighted a less than satisfactory outcome from hemiarthroplasty, with only four of ten cases considered excellent or satisfactory. Balanced against this, Stableforth, in 1984, reported results of a prospective study of 49 patients with three- and four-part fractures of the humeral neck, and showed clearly that reconstruction of the upper end of the humerus with insertion of a Neer prosthesis usually restores comfort and function to the injured shoulder. Internal fixation of humeral neck fractures is also controversial because of the poor quality of the bone of the proximal humerus in elderly patients, and the difficulty of effecting a satisfactory reconstruction that will allow early motion.
This article discusses the pros and cons of surgical intervention in the late 1980's.