Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Obere Extremität 2/2018

Open Access 15.05.2018 | Original contribution

Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity: When are they treated conservatively?

A baseline study

verfasst von: PD Dr. med. Benedikt Schliemann, Lukas F. Heilmann, Michael J. Raschke, Helmut Lill, J. Christoph Katthagen, Alexander Ellwein

Erschienen in: Obere Extremität | Ausgabe 2/2018

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN

Abstract

Background

This study analyzed the indications for conservative management of isolated greater tuberosity (GT) fractures. The rate of secondary interventions for failed conservative treatment was also assessed.

Methods

A retrospective data evaluation of isolated GT fractures was performed from the clinical database of two level-I trauma centers from January 2010 to June 2017. Conservatively treated GT fractures were identified and subdivided according to etiology, morphology, and amount of initial displacement. Secondary surgical interventions were recorded and subcategorized into fracture-associated interventions and interventions for associated soft tissue lesions.

Results

We identified 114 fractures. Nine cases were excluded because patients refused surgery or their comorbidities ruled it out. Only two of the remaining 105 patients had an initial displacement >3 mm. All other GT fractures (n = 103, 98%) were not displaced or only slightly displaced (0–3 mm). The fracture was associated with an anterior shoulder dislocation in 39 cases (37%); 17 patients (16.2%) underwent surgery after primary conservative treatment. Four of these 17 patients presented with a secondary displacement of the GT fragment. In all other cases (76.5%), an associated soft tissue lesion necessitated revision surgery. Young age, anterior shoulder dislocation, and concomitant injuries were risk factors for revision surgery after primary conservative treatment.

Conclusion

Secondary interventions are required more frequently after shoulder dislocation. Surgery is most likely required for associated soft tissue lesions rather than for secondary displacements. Thus, detailed physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging should be used to screen for concomitant soft tissue injuries accompanying GT fractures to prevent revision surgeries.
Fractures of the greater tuberosity (GT) often occur with more complex proximal humerus fractures and are less frequently observed as an isolated pathology. Only 14–20% of proximal humerus fractures are isolated lesions of the GT [4, 15, 23]. Up to 30% of these fractures are associated with anterior glenohumeral dislocations [25].
According to Neer, a displacement of the fragment of >10 mm and 45° (later modified to >5 mm and 30°) is believed to be an indication for operative treatment [20]. However, whether all other fractures can be managed successfully by nonoperative treatment is unclear. Currently, there is a lack of evidence in the literature to support either conservative or operative treatment strategies in GT fractures. Whether the fracture type and the etiology of the fracture impact the decision-making and the final outcome also remains unclear.
There are only a few reports on conservative treatment of isolated GT fractures. Platzer et al. compared the functional results of 52 patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a GT fracture with nine patients who were treated conservatively for similar fractures. All patients had a displaced fracture (>5 mm) [23]. After a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, functional results were significantly better after operative treatment than they were after conservative treatment. The same authors reported on 135 conservatively treated patients with an isolated GT fracture and found worse results in fractures with >3 mm displacement [22]. Similarly, other authors reported good to excellent results in their patients who had conservative treatment for minimally displaced fractures [12, 17, 24].
The present baseline study aimed to analyze under what circumstances isolated fractures of the GT are managed conservatively. In addition to the indication for conservative treatment, the rate of secondary interventions for failed conservative treatment is evaluated.

Patients and methods

A retrospective data evaluation of isolated GT fractures was performed from the clinical database of two german level-I trauma centers from January 2010 to June 2017. A total of 114 patients with a GT fracture were initially treated conservatively. The mean age of the patients at the time of the injury was 55 years (range, 18–94 years). The mechanism of the injury was a direct fall on the affected shoulder in 61 cases, a traffic accident in nine cases, and an anterior shoulder dislocation in 44 cases. All patients had conventional radiographs of the shoulder in the anteroposterior, axillary, and Y‑view. After an isolated fracture of the GT was identified, the degree of displacement was assessed and classified as: (1) no displacement, (2) mild displacement (1–3 mm), or (3) severe displacement (>3 mm). Impression fractures (usually related to glenohumeral dislocations) comprised a fourth group. The fractures were further subdivided into simple fractures with only a single fragment and comminuted fractures with two or more fragments.
The indication for conservative treatment was analyzed according to the patients’ records. A follow-up period of at least 6 months was mandatory in order to evaluate secondary surgical interventions. Interventions were further subdivided into fracture-related procedures and procedures required for associated lesions, such as capsulolabral tears in patients who sustained a shoulder dislocation or posttraumatic stiffness.

Results

A total of 114 patients were identified. In six patients with severe displacement, operative treatment was recommended, but severe comorbidities (i.e. cardiovascular conditions) prevented surgical interventions. In addition, two patients refused to undergo surgery despite severe concomitant soft tissue lesions, and one patient did not return to the hospital after an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was indicated. These nine patients were excluded from the study. Of the remaining 105 fractures, 72 (68.6%) were not displaced (Fig. 1), a mild displacement of 1–3 mm was found in 27 cases (25.7%), severe displacement (>3 mm) was found in two cases (1.9%), and the remaining four fractures (3.8%) were classified as impression fractures (depression type fracture). The decision to treat the two cases with more severe displacement conservatively was made based on an initial displacement of 4 mm. 51% of the fractures were simple and 49% had multiple fragments. Comminuted fractures were more likely to occur with shoulder dislocations (57%). In the acute situation, all fractures were treated conservatively with the affected arm immobilized in an abduction brace to release tension from the rotator cuff on the fracture site. Passive motion was allowed with range of motion (ROM) limited to 90° of flexion and abduction, free external rotation, and no internal rotation for the first 3 weeks.
Patients were reexamined clinically and radiographically to identify secondary displacements. If the patient had further complaints, MRI was performed to analyze the integrity of the rotator cuff and the capsuloligamentous complex.
Of the remaining 105 patients, 17 underwent secondary surgical interventions (16.2%). In only four cases, including the two patients with initial displacement of the GT fragment >3 mm, a surgical revision was required owing to a secondary displacement of the fracture with subsequent impingement and limited ROM (Fig. 2). In all other cases (n = 13), an associated soft tissue lesion led to a secondary surgical intervention. The different procedures are listed in Table 1. Given that three patients refused to undergo surgery despite an indication because of secondary displacement and subsequent limited ROM, the revision rate would have increased to 19%.
Table 1
Overview of secondary surgical interventions
Patient age
Gender
Displacement diameter
Trauma mechanism
Reason for secondary surgery
Surgical intervention
Time point of revision surgerya
77
Female
4 mm (cranial)
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
Secondary displacement
ORIF PHILOS plate
1
80
Female
4 mm (cranial)
Fall
Secondary displacement
ORIF PHILOS plate
2.5
28
Male
No displacement
Traffic accident
Secondary displacement
Twinfix anchor
4.5
46
Female
No displacement
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
Secondary displacement + LHBT tendinitis
A. subacromial decompression + LHBT tenodesis
21
64
Male
No displacement
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
LHBT tendinitis + SSP rupture
LHBT tenodesis + SSR
13.5
44
Female
3 mm (lateral)
Fall
Malposition of healed fracture + LHBT tendinitis + SSP rupture
LHBT tenodesis, tuberculoplasty, SST repair
84
21
Male
No displacement
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
Bankart lesion
A. labral repair and capsular shift
54
25
Male
1 mm (cranial)
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
Bankart lesion + PTSS
A. arthrolysis, labral repair and capsular shift
20
43
Male
No displacement
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
PTSS
A. arthrolysis
16
55
Male
No displacement
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
PTSS
A. arthrolysis + LHBT tenodesis + acromioplasty
24
56
Female
No displacement
Fall
PTSS + LHBT tendinitis
A. arthrolysis + LHBT tenodesis
25
57
Female
No displacement
Traffic accident
PTSS + Impingement
A. arthrolysis + acromioplasty
19
45
Male
No displacement
Fall
SST, SLAP, LHBT rupture
LHBT tenodesis + SSR
25
35
Male
No displacement
Fall
SST
SSR + LHBT tenodesis
28
43
Female
No displacement
Fall
SST
SSR
24
62
Female
No displacement
Fall
Impingement
Subacromial decompression
8
29
Male
3 mm (cranial)
Traumatic shoulder dislocation
Axillary nerve injury
Neurolysis + decompression brachial plexus
30
aWeeks after trauma
PTSS posttraumatic shoulder stiffness, A. arthroscopic, ORIF open reduction and internal fixation, LHBT long head biceps tendon, SST supraspinatus tear, SSR supraspinatus repair, SLAP superior labral tear from anterior to posterior
Patients for whom a shoulder dislocation was the cause of the GT fracture were more likely to undergo secondary surgical intervention (20.5% vs. 13.6%). However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.415).
The fracture morphology (single fragment vs. comminuted fractures) had no significant impact on the risk for secondary interventions.
By contrast, the amount of the initial displacement of the fragment is an indicator of secondary displacement and surgical revisions; all patients with primary displacement of the GT fragment who were treated conservatively and needed revision surgery because of a secondary displacement of the GT fragment had a significant primary displacement of ≥3 mm.
Moreover, younger patients tend to require secondary interventions more frequently than older patients. The mean age of the patients who underwent surgical intervention was 46 years (25–62 years), whereas the mean age of the cohort without secondary intervention was 56 years (18–94 years). However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.148).

Discussion

The present database analysis revealed three major findings: First, the majority of conservatively treated isolated GT fractures (68.6%) are nondisplaced, generally justifying conservative treatment. Second, the rate of secondary interventions was 16.2%. Finally, most of the secondary surgical interventions were not related to the secondary displacement of the GT fracture but to concomitant lesions of the rotator cuff and the capsuloligamentous tissue.
According to the criteria originally defined by Neer, a displacement of >10 mm and 45° is an indication for surgery, and all other fractures can be successfully managed with a conservative approach [20]. Later, these criteria were modified to 5 mm and 30° of displacement. However, it is known that as little as 2–5 mm of displacement can cause impingement and requires increased forces for abduction [79]. In particular, fragment displacement in the posterosuperior direction is associated with impaired function and worse results [2, 27]. Therefore, operative treatment is recommended more aggressively, and numerous articles exist about different techniques and results [1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 17, 23, 26].
By contrast, there are only a few reports on conservative treatment of isolated GT fractures. Platzer et al. reported on the functional results of 135 patients treated conservatively for isolated GT fractures with less than 6 mm displacement [22]. They found good to excellent results in 97% of the cases. This is in accordance with results from other studies of conservative treatment [12, 17, 20, 23, 24]. If the displacement is less than 5 mm, satisfying results can be expected. In addition, the present study shows that patients with a nondisplaced or only slightly displaced fracture (0–3 mm) that did not arise from a shoulder dislocation have a low risk for secondary surgical interventions. Furthermore, fractures with an initial displacement of 3 mm or less are unlikely to have further displacement over time (only 2% in the present study). Patients who required secondary surgery after initial displacement had a primary fracture displacement of >3 mm.
Unfortunately, defining the degree of displacement has also been a matter of debate. When displacement is measured with only plain radiographs, errors of up to 13 mm have been described [21]. A computed tomography (CT) scan may help to minimize these errors. On the other hand, Janssen et al. observed that the imaging modality did not influence the reliability of the fracture assessment or the recommendation for surgical treatment [11]. Mutch et al. suggested using a greater tuberosity ratio (GT ratio) that can be applied to plain radiographs [19]. They found a very strong correlation with computed tomography (CT) scans for superior GT displacement. Furthermore, the GT ratio helped to accurately identify fractures as suitable for conservative or operative treatment or as benefitting from further imaging.
In addition, the amount of initial displacement is relevant to the decision on the treatment modality. However, there is an immediate need to reevaluate patients treated conservatively, since 50–60% of fractures show further displacement over time [22]. Younger patients are at an especially heightened risk. Hebert-Davies et al. found a 5.6-fold higher risk for secondary displacement in patients younger than 70 years compared with patients over 70 years of age [10]. Similarly, in our study, patients with secondary displacement and surgical intervention were younger than the mean age of the cohort (46 vs. 55 years).
Therefore, both aspects, the degree of displacement and how to adequately assess it, must be further investigated.
Another major finding of the present analysis is that concomitant soft tissue lesions lead to a secondary intervention after initial conservative treatment in over three quarters of the cases. In the present analysis, surgical intervention owing to secondary displacement was only performed in four cases (3.8%). Other common interventions include capsuloligamentous and rotator cuff repairs (Table 1). These findings highlight the need for further imaging, particularly MRI scans, to detect any concomitant lesions. Especially in patients with anterior shoulder dislocation and multi-fragmentary GT fracture, concomitant lesions are frequently found and require further operative treatment. Maman et al. reported on 24 arthroscopically treated patients with a GT fracture. Concomitant soft tissue lesions were found in 22 patients (94%) [16]. These findings are supported by Katthagen et al., who found concomitant lesions (i. e., pulley/SLAP and Bankart lesions) in 69% of patients who were treated arthroscopically for a GT fracture [14]. Again, these lesions were found more frequently after shoulder dislocations.
Muhm et al. found concomitant lesions in GT fractures with and without a dislocation [18]. However, in patients with a dislocation, concomitant lesions were more likely to be treated operatively. Interestingly, in the Muhm study, GT fractures with three or more fragments were always associated with anterior shoulder dislocation. In the present analysis, complex fracture patterns were found even in patients without previous shoulder dislocation, although patients were more likely to have a multi-fragmentary fracture when they sustained a shoulder dislocation. The risk for secondary surgical interventions increased with dislocations but not with multi-fragmentary fracture patterns.

Limitations

Some inherent limitations apply to the present analysis. Only patient records were analyzed, and the final functional and radiographic outcomes remain unclear in most cases. Therefore, we cannot provide proof of whether or not conservative treatment leads to good results in patients without secondary interventions. Furthermore, the decision to apply conservative treatment was not based on a distinct algorithm. There is a clear trend, however, toward conservative treatment in patients with only minimally displaced fractures. In most cases, patients with severely displaced fractures were treated conservatively when there were contraindications for surgery or when patients refused to undergo surgical treatment.
Finally, imaging modalities were not consistent in all the cases since not every patient received a CT and/or MRI scan before the decision to apply conservative treatment was made.

Practical conclusion

  • With the exception of two cases, all patients included in this study had no displacement or only slight displacement of the GT fragment (0–3 mm) and a low risk for secondary surgical interventions.
  • Secondary interventions are required more frequently after shoulder dislocation. In addition, revision surgery is most likely required because of concomitant soft tissue lesions rather than prompted by secondary displacements.
  • Detailed physical examination and MRI scans should be utilized in order to screen for concomitant soft tissue injuries accompanying GT fractures so as to prevent revision surgeries.
  • The study highlights the need for further prospective studies in order to define clear indications for conservative treatment based on fracture patterns, imaging modalities, concomitant lesions, and the patients’ individual requests.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

B. Schliemann, L.F. Heilmann, M.J. Raschke, H. Lill, J. C. Katthagen, and A. Ellwein declare that they have no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

Obere Extremität

Print-Titel

Spezialisierung auf die obere Extremität im orthopädisch-traumatologischen Bereich und Themenschwerpunkte mit klaren Handlungsempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhatia DN, De Beer JF, Van Rooyen KS (2007) The bony partial articular surface tendon avulsion lesion: an arthroscopic technique for fixation of the partially avulsed greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy 23:786.e1–786.e6CrossRef Bhatia DN, De Beer JF, Van Rooyen KS (2007) The bony partial articular surface tendon avulsion lesion: an arthroscopic technique for fixation of the partially avulsed greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy 23:786.e1–786.e6CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Bono CM, Renard R, Levine RG et al (2001) Effect of displacement of fractures of the greater tuberosity on the mechanics of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:1056–1062CrossRefPubMed Bono CM, Renard R, Levine RG et al (2001) Effect of displacement of fractures of the greater tuberosity on the mechanics of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:1056–1062CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen YF, Zhang W, Chen Q et al (2013) AO X‑shaped midfoot locking plate to treat displaced isolated greater tuberosity fractures. Orthopedics 36:e995–999CrossRefPubMed Chen YF, Zhang W, Chen Q et al (2013) AO X‑shaped midfoot locking plate to treat displaced isolated greater tuberosity fractures. Orthopedics 36:e995–999CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Court-Brown CM, Garg A, Mcqueen MM (2001) The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus. Epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:799–804CrossRefPubMed Court-Brown CM, Garg A, Mcqueen MM (2001) The translated two-part fracture of the proximal humerus. Epidemiology and outcome in the older patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:799–804CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Dimakopoulos P, Panagopoulos A, Kasimatis G et al (2007) Anterior traumatic shoulder dislocation associated with displaced greater tuberosity fracture: the necessity of operative treatment. J Orthop Trauma 21:104–112CrossRefPubMed Dimakopoulos P, Panagopoulos A, Kasimatis G et al (2007) Anterior traumatic shoulder dislocation associated with displaced greater tuberosity fracture: the necessity of operative treatment. J Orthop Trauma 21:104–112CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Flatow EL, Cuomo F, Maday MG et al (1991) Open reduction and internal fixation of two-part displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:1213–1218CrossRefPubMed Flatow EL, Cuomo F, Maday MG et al (1991) Open reduction and internal fixation of two-part displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:1213–1218CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallo RA, Sciulli R, Daffner RH et al (2007) Defining the relationship between rotator cuff injury and proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 458:70–77PubMed Gallo RA, Sciulli R, Daffner RH et al (2007) Defining the relationship between rotator cuff injury and proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 458:70–77PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat George MS (2007) Fractures of the greater tuberosity of the humerus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:607–613CrossRefPubMed George MS (2007) Fractures of the greater tuberosity of the humerus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:607–613CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Green A, Izzi J Jr. (2003) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:641–649CrossRefPubMed Green A, Izzi J Jr. (2003) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:641–649CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hebert-Davies J, Mutch J, Rouleau D et al (2015) Delayed migration of greater tuberosity fractures associated with anterior shoulder dislocation. J Orthop Trauma 29:e396–400CrossRefPubMed Hebert-Davies J, Mutch J, Rouleau D et al (2015) Delayed migration of greater tuberosity fractures associated with anterior shoulder dislocation. J Orthop Trauma 29:e396–400CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Janssen SJ, Hermanussen HH, Guitton TG et al (2016) Greater tuberosity fractures: does fracture assessment and treatment recommendation vary based on imaging modality? Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1257–1265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Janssen SJ, Hermanussen HH, Guitton TG et al (2016) Greater tuberosity fractures: does fracture assessment and treatment recommendation vary based on imaging modality? Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1257–1265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Jellad A, Bouaziz MA, Boudokhane S et al (2012) Isolated greater tuberosity fracture: short-term functional outcome following a specific rehabilitation program. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 55:16–24CrossRefPubMed Jellad A, Bouaziz MA, Boudokhane S et al (2012) Isolated greater tuberosity fracture: short-term functional outcome following a specific rehabilitation program. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 55:16–24CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Ji JH, Shafi M, Song IS et al (2010) Arthroscopic fixation technique for comminuted, displaced greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy 26:600–609CrossRefPubMed Ji JH, Shafi M, Song IS et al (2010) Arthroscopic fixation technique for comminuted, displaced greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy 26:600–609CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Katthagen JC, Jensen G, Voigt C et al (2014) Arthroscopy for proximal humeral fracture. Arthroskopie 27:265–274CrossRef Katthagen JC, Jensen G, Voigt C et al (2014) Arthroscopy for proximal humeral fracture. Arthroskopie 27:265–274CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Lind T, Kroner K, Jensen J (1989) The epidemiology of fractures of the proximal humerus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 108:285–287CrossRefPubMed Lind T, Kroner K, Jensen J (1989) The epidemiology of fractures of the proximal humerus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 108:285–287CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Maman E, Dolkart O, Chechik O et al (2014) Arthroscopic findings of coexisting lesions with greater tuberosity fractures. Orthopedics 37:e272–e277CrossRefPubMed Maman E, Dolkart O, Chechik O et al (2014) Arthroscopic findings of coexisting lesions with greater tuberosity fractures. Orthopedics 37:e272–e277CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Mattyasovszky SG, Burkhart KJ, Ahlers C et al (2011) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus: a long-term retrospective study of 30 patients. Acta Orthop 82:714–720CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mattyasovszky SG, Burkhart KJ, Ahlers C et al (2011) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus: a long-term retrospective study of 30 patients. Acta Orthop 82:714–720CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Muhm M, Arend S, Winkler H et al (2017) Associated injuries with greater tuberosity fractures: mechanism of injury, diagnostics, treatment. Unfallchirurg 120:854–864CrossRefPubMed Muhm M, Arend S, Winkler H et al (2017) Associated injuries with greater tuberosity fractures: mechanism of injury, diagnostics, treatment. Unfallchirurg 120:854–864CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Mutch JA, Rouleau DM, Laflamme GY et al (2014) Accurate measurement of greater tuberosity displacement without computed tomography: validation of a method on plain radiography to guide surgical treatment. J Orthop Trauma 28:445–451CrossRefPubMed Mutch JA, Rouleau DM, Laflamme GY et al (2014) Accurate measurement of greater tuberosity displacement without computed tomography: validation of a method on plain radiography to guide surgical treatment. J Orthop Trauma 28:445–451CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077–1089CrossRefPubMed Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077–1089CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Parsons BO, Klepps SJ, Miller S et al (2005) Reliability and reproducibility of radiographs of greater tuberosity displacement. A cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:58–65CrossRefPubMed Parsons BO, Klepps SJ, Miller S et al (2005) Reliability and reproducibility of radiographs of greater tuberosity displacement. A cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:58–65CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Platzer P, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Lehr S et al (2005) The influence of displacement on shoulder function in patients with minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity. Injury 36:1185–1189CrossRefPubMed Platzer P, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Lehr S et al (2005) The influence of displacement on shoulder function in patients with minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity. Injury 36:1185–1189CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Oberleitner G et al (2008) Displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. J Trauma 65:843–848CrossRefPubMed Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Oberleitner G et al (2008) Displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. J Trauma 65:843–848CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Rath E, Alkrinawi N, Levy O et al (2013) Minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: outcome of non-operative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:e8–e11CrossRefPubMed Rath E, Alkrinawi N, Levy O et al (2013) Minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: outcome of non-operative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:e8–e11CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson CM, Shur N, Sharpe T et al (2012) Injuries associated with traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:18–26CrossRefPubMed Robinson CM, Shur N, Sharpe T et al (2012) Injuries associated with traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:18–26CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Schoffl V, Popp D, Strecker W (2011) A simple and effective implant for displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: the “Bamberg” plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:509–512CrossRefPubMed Schoffl V, Popp D, Strecker W (2011) A simple and effective implant for displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: the “Bamberg” plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:509–512CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Verdano MA, Aliani D, Pellegrini A et al (2014) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity in proximal humerus: does the direction of displacement influence functional outcome? An analysis of displacement in greater tuberosity fractures. Acta Biomed 84:219–228PubMed Verdano MA, Aliani D, Pellegrini A et al (2014) Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity in proximal humerus: does the direction of displacement influence functional outcome? An analysis of displacement in greater tuberosity fractures. Acta Biomed 84:219–228PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity: When are they treated conservatively?
A baseline study
verfasst von
PD Dr. med. Benedikt Schliemann
Lukas F. Heilmann
Michael J. Raschke
Helmut Lill
J. Christoph Katthagen
Alexander Ellwein
Publikationsdatum
15.05.2018
Verlag
Springer Medizin
Erschienen in
Obere Extremität / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1862-6599
Elektronische ISSN: 1862-6602
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11678-018-0459-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Obere Extremität 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Mitteilungen der DVSE

Mitteilungen der DVSE

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.