E-submission
KOTA
TOTA
TOTS
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > > Ahead-of print articles > Article
-
Original Article
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures in Korea with three or more years of follow-up: a retrospective cohort study
-
Sang Jin Cheon1
, Kyu-Hak Jung2, Min Hyeok Choi3, Suk-Woong Kang4 -
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12671/jmt.2025.00325
Published online: February 26, 2026
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
2Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yeson Hospital, Bucheon, Korea
3Department of Preventive and Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Office of Public Healthcare Service, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea
4Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea
- Correspondence to: Suk-Woong Kang Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, 20 Geumo-ro, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan 50612, Korea Tel: +82-55-360-2125, Email: redmaniak@naver.com
• Received: October 27, 2025 • Revised: December 1, 2025 • Accepted: December 8, 2025
© 2026 The Korean Orthopaedic Trauma Association
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 50 Views
- 5 Download
Abstract
-
Background Shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA) is an established treatment option for complex proximal humeral fractures, particularly in cases involving severe comminution or osteoporotic bone. This study investigated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of HA with a minimum follow-up of 3 years and aimed to identify prognostic factors associated with postoperative function.
-
Methods We retrospectively reviewed 44 patients (16 males and 28 females; mean age, 61.2 years; range, 23–83 years) who underwent shoulder HA for complex proximal humeral fractures between 2005 and 2018. The mean follow-up duration was 70.4 months (range, 36–168 months). Clinical evaluations included the Constant score, visual analog scale pain score, patient satisfaction, and range of motion. Radiographic assessments examined tuberosity healing, radiolucent lines, acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and glenoid arthrosis.
-
Results At the 3-year follow-up, 64% of patients reported being satisfied or very satisfied. The mean Constant score was 46.6 (range, 13–71), and the age- and sex-adjusted Constant score was 53.5 (range, 19–92). Radiographically, 23% of patients demonstrated radiolucent lines, and 41% showed evidence of glenoid arthrosis. Tuberosity absorption occurred in 39% of patients, with a mean onset of 11.2 months postoperatively, and was significantly associated with lower Constant scores and reduced range of motion. Patients younger than 60 years demonstrated better functional outcomes and lower rates of tuberosity absorption. The mean AHD decreased from 8.4 mm postoperatively to 4.4 mm at the 3-year follow-up (P<0.001).
-
Conclusions Shoulder HA for complex proximal humeral fractures yielded satisfactory pain relief and functional outcomes, particularly when tuberosity healing was preserved. However, elderly patients with diminished bone quality were more likely to develop tuberosity absorption and experience poorer functional recovery. Meticulous surgical technique and careful postoperative surveillance remain essential to achieving optimal results.
-
Level of evidence III.
Introduction
Proximal humeral fractures are among the most common osteoporotic injuries in the elderly, accounting for approximately 5% of all fractures. Anatomical reduction and stable fixation are often difficult, making arthroplasty a reasonable option. Historically, hemiarthroplasty (HA) has been widely used in such cases. Recently, the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has increased; however, it is generally limited to carefully selected elderly patients with proximal humeral fractures. Several studies have reported that in this specific subgroup, particularly in those with poor bone quality or rotator cuff insufficiency, RSA may provide better clinical outcomes and lower complication rates than HA [1-3].
Although RSA provides reliable pain relief and restoration of elevation in elderly individuals, complications such as instability, scapular notching, glenoid component loosening, and comparatively lower implant survival rates than hip and knee arthroplasty remain concerns. Therefore, in younger and more active patients, HA is still considered an alternative to preserve the bone stock and restore near-anatomic biomechanics [4]. Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of HA are often unsatisfactory, and tuberosity healing has been identified as a major prognostic factor for postoperative function [5-7].
Malunion or nonunion of the tuberosities leads to decreased strength, a limited range of motion, and poor patient satisfaction. Boileau et al. [5] reported that resorption or malposition of the tuberosity was the primary cause of poor results after HA, and Kralinger et al. [6] also demonstrated significantly lower Constant scores in the nonunion group than in the healing group.
Another concern following HA is the development of secondary glenoid changes, including erosion or arthrosis, which may deteriorate the long-term outcomes. Zhao et al. [8] observed glenoid erosion in 64.9% of patients at an average follow-up of 14.7 years and reported significantly worse clinical outcomes in this group. Parsons et al. [9] also found progressive glenoid wear and joint-space narrowing in all young active patients after HA, which correlated with reduced function. However, the clinical significance and progression pattern of glenoid arthrosis remain unclear.
Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of HA performed for proximal humeral fractures with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. This study focused on the influence of tuberosity healing, changes in the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and the occurrence of glenoid arthrosis to clarify the midterm results and prognostic factors for HA.
Methods
This study was conducted at Pusan National University Hospital. The study protocol and data use were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Gachon University Gil Medical Center, with appropriate data-sharing agreements in place (IRB No. GFIRB2018-382).
This was a single-arm retrospective cohort study. It was described according to the STROBE statement available at https://www.strobe-statement.org/.
This study was conducted in Pusan National University Hospital, Korea. Patients were treated between January 2005 and December 2018 and were followed in an outpatient setting according to a standardized postoperative schedule (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and annually thereafter).
Before surgery, templating was performed on both shoulder radiographs and both sides were compared. An appropriate insertion length was determined for implant insertion. All patients underwent a 30° beach-chair position under general anesthesia. A deltopectoral approach was used in all the cases. During the operation, a trial stem was inserted and the tension of the biceps tendon and deltoid muscle was adjusted. Traction was applied to confirm proper reduction and humeral head height. Cement was used to fix humeral stems. The tuberosity was fixed with Ethibond No. 5 (Ethicon) and attached to the stem. The cancellous bone was taken from the surrounding humeral head, and the sutures were bundled. To confirm whether the soft tissues, including the tuberosity, were properly sutured after surgery, we investigated whether a forward elevation of 140°, internal rotation of 50°–70°, and external rotation of 40° were possible, and whether 10–15 mm posterior subluxation was possible. Postoperatively, a shoulder abduction brace was applied for 6 weeks. Passive pendulum and isometric exercises were performed on the first postoperative day. One week postoperatively, passive shoulder motion began, and the range of motion gradually increased. Active range of motion was measured 6 weeks after surgery, and resistance strengthening exercises were allowed at 12 weeks.
Eligible participants were patients who underwent primary shoulder HA for proximal humeral fractures during the study period. During this period, HA was selected when fixation was not feasible because of severe comminution or poor bone quality. Patients were included in the final cohort if they had postoperative follow-up for at least 3 years with available clinical outcomes and radiographic evaluation. Patients were excluded if follow-up was shorter than 3 years (including death before minimum follow-up) or if they were lost to follow-up. A total of 47 patients were initially identified. Among them, two patients died and one was lost to follow-up. Consequently, 44 patients (16 males and 28 females) who were followed up for at least three years were included in the study.
The primary clinical outcome was the Constant score at the 3-year follow-up. Age- and sex-adjusted Constant scores were also evaluated. Secondary clinical outcomes included pain during active motion, measured using a 0–10 visual analog scale; patient satisfaction; and active range of motion. Radiographic outcomes comprised AHD measured on true anteroposterior radiographs; radiolucent lines around the humeral stem at the cement-bone or implant-bone interface; glenoid arthrosis, characterized by joint-space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis or cysts, or osteophyte formation on anteroposterior or axillary views; and tuberosity absorption, defined as nonunion with radiographic absorption or loss of the greater tuberosity.
Demographic and perioperative variables were obtained from electronic medical records and operative reports.
Clinical assessment
All patients were assessed 1 day preoperatively, and postoperative evaluation was regularly performed during outpatient visits (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, and once a year thereafter). The clinical results were defined according to the Constant score and postoperative age- and sex-adjusted Constant scores. Subjective pain during active motion was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) [10], with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating extremely severe pain. The patients’ self-assessment scale was measured as very satisfied, satisfied, acceptable, and disappointed. We also assessed the patients’ active range of motion in forward elevation, abduction and external rotation (at the side).
Radiographic assessment
True anteroposterior and axillary radiographs were obtained preoperatively, postoperatively, and at regular visits. Radiographic evaluations included the assessment of AHD, radiolucent lines, glenoid arthrosis, and tuberosity absorption. The AHD was measured on true anteroposterior radiographs. Radiolucent lines were assessed at the cement-bone or implant-bone interface around the humeral stem [11]. Glenoid arthrosis was defined radiographically as the presence of joint space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis, subchondral cysts, or osteophyte formation on the true anteroposterior or axillary views [9]. Tuberosity absorption was evaluated and defined as nonunion with radiographic absorption or loss of the greater tuberosity (Figs. 1, 2) [12].
Paired comparisons of the AHD between immediate postoperative radiographs and radiographs obtained at the 3-year follow-up were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were used for between-group comparisons (tuberosity absorption vs no absorption; ≥60 vs. <60), as appropriate. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS ver. 20.0 (IBM Corp.). A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The mean age at the time of surgery was 61.2 years (range, 23–83 years), and the mean follow-up duration was 70.4 months (range, 36–168 months) (Table 1). Fractures were categorized according to the Neer classification, which defines displaced proximal humerus fractures by the number of involved parts; based on this system, 16 cases were identified as three-part fractures and 28 as four-part fractures.
The implants used in this study were the Global Shoulder System (DePuy Inc.), Bipolar Shoulder System (Biomet Inc.), and Bigliani/Flatow Shoulder System (Zimmer Inc.).
At the 3-year follow-up, the mean VAS score was 2.1 (range, 0–5). Regarding patient satisfaction, 12 patients (27%) reported being very satisfied and 16 patients (36%) were satisfied with the operated shoulder. The mean Constant score was 46.6 (range, 13–71), the age- and sex-adjusted Constant score was 53.5 (range, 19–92). The mean active shoulder range of motion was as follows: forward elevation, 120.6 (range, 20–145); abduction, 114.5 (range, 20–140) and external rotation, 52.4 (range, 10–65) (Table 2).
At the 3-year follow-up, all stems were radiographically stable without evidence of loosening; however, radiolucent lines were observed in 10 patients (23%). The radiolucent lines were first detected at a mean of 25.2 months (range, 12–36). Glenoid arthrosis was observed in 18 patients (41%) at a mean of 34.4 months (range, 12–36) after surgery. At the 3-year follow-up, absorption of the tuberosity was observed in 17 cases (39%), with a mean of 11.2 months (range, 6–24) after surgery. The AHD was 8.4 mm immediately after surgery and 4.4 mm at 3-year follow-up (P<0.001) (Table 3).
Among the 44 patients, 17 showed tuberosity absorption and 27 did not. The median age was 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65–76 years) in the absorption group and 59 years (IQR, 47–72 years) in the nonabsorption group. At the 3-year follow-up, the median VAS score was 3 (IQR, 1–4) in the absorption group and 2 (IQR, 1–3) in the nonabsorption group. The median Constant score was significantly lower in the absorption group than in the nonabsorption group (35 [IQR, 34–35] vs. 50 [IQR, 49–71]; P=0.004), as was the median age- and sex-adjusted Constant score (40 [IQR, 30–50] vs. 60 [IQR, 44–78]; P=0.002). The median forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation were 80° (IQR, 50°–105°), 95° (IQR, 85°–100°), and 30° (IQR, 30°–35°), respectively, in the absorption group, compared with 145° (IQR, 145°–160°), 130° (IQR, 120°–140°), and 60° (IQR, 55°–70°) in the nonabsorption group. Differences in all range of motion parameters were statistically significant between the two groups (all P<0.001) (Table 4).
Among the 44 patients, 24 were aged ≥60 years and 20 were aged <60 years. The median age was 73.5 years (IQR, 68.5–78 years) in patients aged ≥60 years and 46.5 years (IQR, 38.5–56.5 years) in those aged <60 years. At the 3-year follow-up, the median VAS score was 2 (IQR, 1–3) in patients aged ≥60 years and 2 (IQR, 0.5–4) in patients aged <60 years. The median Constant score was significantly lower in patients aged ≥60 years than in those aged <60 years (35 [IQR, 34–49.5] vs. 50 [IQR, 50.0–70.5]; P=0.001), as was the median age- and sex-adjusted Constant score (46 [IQR, 34.5–58.5] vs. 60 [IQR, 40–80]; P=0.014). Glenoid arthrosis was observed in 10 patients (41.7%) aged ≥60 years and eight patients (40.0%) aged <60 years, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P=1.0). Tuberosity absorption occurred more frequently in patients aged ≥60 years than in those aged <60 years (13 [54.2%] vs. 4 [20.0%]; P=0.030). Patients aged <60 years demonstrated greater range of motion. The median forward elevation and abduction were significantly higher in patients aged <60 years than in those aged ≥60 years (150° [IQR, 145°–160°] vs. 110° [IQR, 72.5°–145°], P<0.001; and 135° [IQR, 119°–140°] vs. 100° [IQR, 90°–120°], P<0.001, respectively). External rotation was also significantly greater in patients aged <60 years (65° [IQR, 61°–80°] vs. 33° [IQR, 30°–57.5°]; P<0.001) (Table 5).
One patient underwent plate fixation for a periprosthetic fracture. One patient underwent revision surgery because of a postoperative infection. Two patients experienced axillary nerve injury after trauma, and conservative treatment was administered.
Discussion
This study investigated the midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of shoulder HA for complex proximal humeral fractures with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Overall, the patients demonstrated moderate Constant scores and satisfactory pain control at the 3-year follow-up, with approximately 64% reporting satisfaction with the procedure. Radiographically, 39% of patients exhibited tuberosity absorption at 3 years postoperatively, which was associated with inferior clinical outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of anatomical restoration for optimal functional recovery. Additionally, radiolucent lines were identified in 23% of the cases and glenoid arthrosis developed in 41% of the cases, suggesting that mid- to long-term monitoring is essential for these patients.
As a standard treatment for proximal humeral fractures, shoulder HA is generally performed for complex comminuted fractures, dislocations, or head-split fractures. Mighell et al. [13] reported that 93% of patients who underwent HA for proximal humeral fractures were pain-free and satisfied with their clinical outcomes at follow-up, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores. Several reports have suggested HA for proximal humeral fractures because many patients have good functional results [14-16]. Implants have recently been developed for RSA. Therefore, RSA is becoming more common than HA for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures [17]. However, most studies have compared elderly patients, and RSA in young patients remains controversial. If plate fixation is difficult for proximal humeral fractures in relatively young patients, HA is still used as a primary treatment.
Gronhagen et al. [18] asserted that the classification of fractures was not correlated with the Constant score in the midterm follow-up and noted that the status of soft tissue, not just the fracture classification, was important as a postoperative result. We also found no correlation between the fracture type and postoperative results and could not objectively determine the preoperative state of the soft tissues. Gronhagen et al. [18] concluded that early postoperative surgery affects the outcome, which is an important factor already mentioned by several authors, and we could not analyze the correlation statistically because of the delayed operation in this study [13,19].
Many factors affect the functional outcomes of HA. The age of the patients, time to surgery after injury, the position of humeral stem and rotator cuff integrity were reported as important factors [20,21], and it is known that the anatomical reduction and union of greater tuberosity after surgery is the most important factor on postoperative function [5,19,22]. Boileau et al. [5] reported that the outcomes of 66 patients who underwent HA were related to displacement and malposition of the tuberosity. Initial malposition was observed in 27% of patients. Finally, it was reported that 50% of the cases showed an abnormal position of the tuberosity. In this case, the superior displacement of the implant, shoulder stiffness or weakness, and continuous pain were unsatisfactory. In our cases, nonunion or absorption of the tuberosity affected the postoperative prognosis. In addition, Boileau et al. [5] described factors related to malunion of the tuberosity, such as initial replacement of the implant, malposition of the tuberosity, and age >75 years. Anatomical union of the tuberosity is the most important factor in the HA. Moreover, rehabilitation should be delayed in such patients.
Antuna et al. [23] also described age as an important factor. Elderly individuals have relatively poor bone quality, which affects the healing of the tuberosity, and rehabilitation also shows poor functional outcomes. We also found that preservation of tuberosity healing was a key determinant of postoperative function.
The reported incidence of glenoid arthrosis varies depending on the radiographic definition and follow-up duration. However, there are few cases in which reoperation is required, even in cases of glenoid arthrosis [19,24]. Gronhagen et al. [18] found 35% of these cases and no such correlation, but interpreted it as having poor results in postoperative Constant scores. Mighell et al. [13] observed radiologic changes in degenerative joints in six of eight patients (72%). Two of them involved dissociation of the implant, and one case involved nonunion of the tuberosity. To solve this problem, reoperation was performed. At the time of reoperation, the patient had severe arthritis of the glenoid, concomitant glenoid replacement was performed at the time of reoperation. In our study, glenoid arthrosis was observed in 41% of patients, but the effect on postoperative results was not statistically significant. However, in our cases, it is thought that midterm follow-up was not sufficient to determine the progression of the degenerative lesion to the joint, and long-term follow-up is needed to determine the effect of the degenerative change in the joint on the prognosis.
First, it had a retrospective design with a moderate sample size, which may limit the strength of the statistical inferences. Second, although all patients were followed up for at least 3 years, long-term outcomes beyond this period (e.g., at 5 or 10 years) were not assessed. Third, our radiographic assessments (tuberosity healing, glenoid changes, and AHD) were based on plain radiographs, which may not fully capture the three-dimensional anatomic details. Despite these limitations, our study offers valuable insights into the midterm behavior of HA in proximal humeral fractures, highlighting the importance of tuberosity healing and early detection of glenoid changes. Future prospective multicenter studies with long-term follow-up and advanced imaging modalities (e.g., CT and 3D reconstruction) are needed to better delineate the factors that influence sustained outcomes after HA.
These findings are most generalizable to patients in Korea with proximal humeral fractures treated with HA because internal fixation is not feasible due to severe comminution or poor bone quality, using similar surgical technique and rehabilitation. Generalizability to other populations, surgeons, implant systems, and healthcare settings may be limited. In addition, because this was a single-cohort study without a non-HA comparison group, the results should not be interpreted as comparative effectiveness versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty or fixation strategies.
Shoulder HA for complex proximal humeral fractures provided satisfactory pain relief and functional recovery at the 3-year follow-up, when adequate tuberosity healing was achieved. However, tuberosity absorption was associated with poorer long-term outcomes. Continuous radiographic monitoring and precise surgical reconstruction of the tuberosities are essential to obtain optimal results.
-
Author contribution
Conceptualization: SJC, SWK. Data curation: KHJ. Formal analysis: KHJ, MHC, SWK. Investigation: KHJ, SWK. Methodology: KHJ, SWK. Writing-original draft: SJC, MHC, SWK. Writing-review & editing: SJC, SWK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
-
Conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
-
Funding
This work was supported by a 2-Year Research Grant of Pusan National University.
-
Data availability
Contact the corresponding author for data availability.
-
Acknowledgments
We respectfully dedicate this manuscript to the memory of Young-Kyu Kim, MD, PhD (1959-2025; former professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea), whose passing in August 2025 preceded the submission of this work. Dr. Kim's pioneering contributions to the conception, design, and execution of this study reflect his lifelong dedication to advancing the field of shoulder arthroplasty. His scientific rigor and clinical expertise continue to guide our research endeavors.
-
Supplementary materials
None.
Article Information
Fig. 1.
Radiography of the right proximal humerus fracture in a 52-year-old female patient. (A) Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph demonstrating a four-part fracture. (B) Immediate postoperative anteroposterior radiograph following hemiarthroplasty. (C) Anteroposterior radiograph at the 3-year follow-up showing decreased acromiohumeral distance and progression of glenoid arthrosis.
Fig. 2.
Radiography of the left proximal humerus fracture and dislocation in a 65-year-old male patient. (A) Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph demonstrating a four-part fracture-dislocation. (B) Immediate postoperative anteroposterior radiograph following hemiarthroplasty. (C) Anteroposterior radiograph at the 3-year follow-up demonstrating tuberosity healing.
Table 1.
Preoperative demographic data of patients (n=44)
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Patient | 44 |
| Age (yr) | 61.2±15.7 (23–83) |
| Male sex | 16 (36.4) |
| Follow-up duration (mo) | 70.4±53.1 (36–168) |
| Fracture type | |
| 3-Part | 16 (36.4) |
| 4-Part | 28 (63.6) |
Table 2.
Clinical outcomes after hemiarthroplasty at the 3-year follow-up
Table 3.
Radiographic findings after hemiarthroplasty at the 3-year follow-up
Table 4.
Comparison of outcomes according to the tuberosity absorption at the 3-year follow-up
Table 5.
Comparison of outcomes between patients aged ≥60 and those aged <60 years at the 3-year follow-up
- 1. Hasler A, Ker A, Grubhofer F, et al. Clinical and radiographic long-term outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for complex proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2024;33:698-706.ArticlePubMed
- 2. Ferrel JR, Trinh TQ, Fischer RA. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma 2015;29:60-8.ArticlePubMed
- 3. Boyle MJ, Youn SM, Frampton CM, Ball CM. Functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:32-7.ArticlePubMed
- 4. Essilfie AA, Gamradt SC. The role for shoulder hemiarthroplasty in the young, active patient. Clin Sports Med 2018;37:527-35.ArticlePubMed
- 5. Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Molé D. Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:401-12.ArticlePubMed
- 6. Kralinger F, Schwaiger R, Wambacher M, et al. Outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty for fracture of the head of the humerus. A retrospective multicentre study of 167 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:217-9.ArticlePubMed
- 7. Gadea F, Alami G, Pape G, Boileau P, Favard L. Shoulder hemiarthroplasty: outcomes and long-term survival analysis according to etiology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012;98:659-65.ArticlePubMed
- 8. Zhao Y, Zhu Y, Lu Y, Li F, Jiang C. Long-term outcomes of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop 2023;47:1517-26.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 9. Parsons IM 4th, Millett PJ, Warner JJ. Glenoid wear after shoulder hemiarthroplasty: quantitative radiographic analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;(421):120-5.ArticlePubMed
- 10. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8(12):1153-7.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Torrens C, Martínez-Díaz S, Ruiz A, Gines A, Cáceres E. Assessment of radiolucent lines in cemented shoulder hemi-arthroplasties: study of concordance and reproducibility. Int Orthop 2009;33:165-9.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 12. Reuther F, Muller S, Wahl D. Management of humeral head fractures with a trauma shoulder prosthesis: correlation between joint function and healing of the tuberosities. Acta Orthop Belg 2007;73:179-87.PubMed
- 13. Mighell MA, Kolm GP, Collinge CA, Frankle MA. Outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:569-77.ArticlePubMed
- 14. Agarwal S, Rana A, Sharma RK. Functional outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty in three or four part proximal humerus fracture: a short term followup. Indian J Orthop 2016;50:590-4.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 15. Bosch U, Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Tscherne H. Outcome after primary and secondary hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998;7:479-84.ArticlePubMed
- 16. Dimakopoulos P, Potamitis N, Lambiris E. Hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of comminuted intraarticular fractures of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;(341):7-11.Article
- 17. LaMartina J 2nd, Christmas KN, Simon P, et al. Difficulty in decision making in the treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures: the effect of uncertainty on surgical outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018;27:470-7.ArticlePubMed
- 18. Gronhagen CM, Abbaszadegan H, Revay SA, Adolphson PY. Medium-term results after primary hemiarthroplasty for comminute proximal humerus fractures: a study of 46 patients followed up for an average of 4.4 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:766-73.ArticlePubMed
- 19. Kwon YW, Zuckerman JD. Outcome after treatment of proximal humeral fractures with humeral head replacement. Instr Course Lect 2005;54:363-9.PubMed
- 20. Demirhan M, Kilicoglu O, Altinel L, Eralp L, Akalin Y. Prognostic factors in prosthetic replacement for acute proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2003;17:181-8.ArticlePubMed
- 21. Robinson CM, Page RS, Hill RM, Sanders DL, Court-Brown CM, Wakefield AE. Primary hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:1215-23.ArticlePubMed
- 22. Frankle MA, Mighell MA. Techniques and principles of tuberosity fixation for proximal humeral fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004;13:239-47.ArticlePubMed
- 23. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus: a minimum five-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:202-9.ArticlePubMed
- 24. Plausinis D, Kwon YW, Zuckerman JD. Complications of humeral head replacement for proximal humeral fractures. Instr Course Lect 2005;54:371-80.ArticlePubMed
References
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadClinical and radiographic outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures in Korea with three or more years of follow-up: a retrospective cohort study
Fig. 1. Radiography of the right proximal humerus fracture in a 52-year-old female patient. (A) Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph demonstrating a four-part fracture. (B) Immediate postoperative anteroposterior radiograph following hemiarthroplasty. (C) Anteroposterior radiograph at the 3-year follow-up showing decreased acromiohumeral distance and progression of glenoid arthrosis.
Fig. 2. Radiography of the left proximal humerus fracture and dislocation in a 65-year-old male patient. (A) Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph demonstrating a four-part fracture-dislocation. (B) Immediate postoperative anteroposterior radiograph following hemiarthroplasty. (C) Anteroposterior radiograph at the 3-year follow-up demonstrating tuberosity healing.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures in Korea with three or more years of follow-up: a retrospective cohort study
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Patient | 44 |
| Age (yr) | 61.2±15.7 (23–83) |
| Male sex | 16 (36.4) |
| Follow-up duration (mo) | 70.4±53.1 (36–168) |
| Fracture type | |
| 3-Part | 16 (36.4) |
| 4-Part | 28 (63.6) |
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Patient | 44 |
| Visual analog scale | 2.1±1.6 (0–5) |
| Patient satisfaction score | |
| Very satisfied | 12 (27.3) |
| Satisfied | 16 (36.4) |
| Acceptable | 12 (27.3) |
| Disappointed | 4 (9.1) |
| Constant score | 46.6±16.4 (13–71) |
| Age- and sex-adjusted Constant | 53.5±19.1 (19–92) |
| Forward elevation (°) | 120.6±45.1 (20–145) |
| Abduction (°) | 114.5±24.0 (20–140) |
| External rotation (°) | 52.4±17.7 (10–65) |
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Patient | 44 |
| Radiolucent line | 10 (23) |
| Time until development of radiolucent line (mo) | 25.2±7.8 (12–36) |
| Glenoid arthrosis | 18 (41) |
| Time until development of glenoid arthrosis (mo) | 34.4±5.8 (12–36) |
| Tuberosity absorption | 17 (39) |
| Time until development of tuberosity absorption (mo) | 11.2±5.2 (6–24) |
| Acromiohumeral distance after surgery (mm) | 8.4±2.9 |
| Acromiohumeral distance at the 3-year follow-up (mm) | 4.4±3.1 |
| Variable | Absorption | No absorption | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | 17 | 27 | - |
| Age (yr) | 72 (65–76) | 59 (47–72) | 0.141 |
| Visual analog scale score | 3 (1–4) | 2 (1–3) | 0.457 |
| Constant score | 35 (34–35) | 50 (49–71) | 0.004 |
| Age- and sex-adjusted Constant score | 40 (30–50) | 60 (44–78) | 0.002 |
| Forward elevation (°) | 80 (50–105) | 145 (145–160) | <0.001 |
| Abduction (°) | 95 (85–100) | 130 (120–140) | <0.001 |
| External rotation (°) | 30 (30–35) | 60 (55–70) | <0.001 |
| Radiolucent line | 4 (23.5) | 6 (22.2) | 1 |
| Glenoid arthrosis | 12 (70.6) | 6 (22.2) | 0.004 |
| Difference in acromiohumeral distance (mm) | 5.9 (4.1–7.3) | 3 (1.5–4.3) | <0.001 |
| Variable | ≥60 Years | <60 Years | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | 24 | 20 | - |
| Age (yr) | 74 (69–78) | 47 (39–57) | ˂0.001 |
| Visual analog scale score | 2 (1–3) | 2 (0.5–4) | 0.644 |
| Constant score | 35 (34–49.5) | 50 (50.0–70.5) | 0.001 |
| Age- and sex-adjusted Constant score | 46 (34.5–58.5) | 60 (40.0–80.0) | 0.014 |
| Forward elevation (°) | 110 (72.5–145) | 150 (145–160) | ˂0.001 |
| Abduction (°) | 100 (90–120) | 135 (119–140) | ˂0.001 |
| External rotation (°) | 33 (30–57.5) | 65 (61–80) | ˂0.001 |
| Radiolucent line | 4 (16.7) | 6 (30.0) | 0.472 |
| Glenoid arthrosis | 10 (41.7) | 8 (40.0) | 1 |
| Tuberosity absorption | 13 (54.2) | 4 (20.0) | 0.030 |
| Difference in acromiohumeral distance (mm) | 4.3 (2.6–6.2) | 4 (2.1–4.8) | 0.563 |
Table 1. Preoperative demographic data of patients (n=44)
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (range) or number (%).
Table 2. Clinical outcomes after hemiarthroplasty at the 3-year follow-up
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (range) or number (%).
Table 3. Radiographic findings after hemiarthroplasty at the 3-year follow-up
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation (range).
Table 4. Comparison of outcomes according to the tuberosity absorption at the 3-year follow-up
Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%). Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact test.
Table 5. Comparison of outcomes between patients aged ≥60 and those aged <60 years at the 3-year follow-up
Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%). Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and Categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact test.
