Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Proximal humerus fractures account for approximately 4–6% of all fractures and are among the most common fractures in the elderly. Surgical treatment is increasingly applied for displaced and unstable fracture patterns. The two most commonly used techniques are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via a deltopectoral approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) using a deltoid-split or anterolateral approach. ORIF allows direct fracture visualization and anatomical reduction but is associated with more extensive surgical exposure. MIPO aims to preserve soft tissues and vascular supply through indirect reduction techniques. This study compares ORIF and MIPO in proximal humerus fractures with regard to surgical parameters, radiographic outcomes, and complications.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective single-center cohort of 392 proximal humerus fractures was analyzed. Seventy-nine patients treated with MIPO were matched to 79 patients treated with ORIF using exact matching for fracture type (Mayo FJD classification) and propensity score matching for age and sex. Primary outcomes included operative time, reduction quality, and complication rates.</p> Results <p>The MIPO group showed significantly shorter operative times (97.3 ± 30.8&#xa0;min vs. 112.2 ± 34.0&#xa0;min, <i>p</i> = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in reduction quality or overall complication rates (MIPO 19.0% vs. ORIF 21.5%). However, functional complications and implant malpositioning showed a non-significant trend toward higher rates in the MIPO group, while hardware-related complications were more frequently observed in the ORIF group.</p> Conclusion <p>Our findings support MIPO as a valuable alternative to ORIF for proximal humerus fractures, offering reduced operative time without compromising reduction quality or complication rates. Patient selection, fracture complexity, and surgeon experience should guide technique choice. Appropriate training remains essential, and future prospective studies incorporating functional outcome measures are warranted.</p> Level of evidence <p>Level III, retrospective matched-pair-study.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does the operative technique (MIPO vs. ORIF) influence surgical outcomes and complications in proximal humerus fractures? A matched-pair analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月11日

查看全文
  • Christiane Barthel,
  • Franziska Rudolph,
  • Moritz Kraus,
  • Yannik Kalbas,
  • Rodd Russek,
  • Hans-Christoph Pape,
  • Florin Allemann

摘要

Introduction

Proximal humerus fractures account for approximately 4–6% of all fractures and are among the most common fractures in the elderly. Surgical treatment is increasingly applied for displaced and unstable fracture patterns. The two most commonly used techniques are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via a deltopectoral approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) using a deltoid-split or anterolateral approach. ORIF allows direct fracture visualization and anatomical reduction but is associated with more extensive surgical exposure. MIPO aims to preserve soft tissues and vascular supply through indirect reduction techniques. This study compares ORIF and MIPO in proximal humerus fractures with regard to surgical parameters, radiographic outcomes, and complications.

Methods

A retrospective single-center cohort of 392 proximal humerus fractures was analyzed. Seventy-nine patients treated with MIPO were matched to 79 patients treated with ORIF using exact matching for fracture type (Mayo FJD classification) and propensity score matching for age and sex. Primary outcomes included operative time, reduction quality, and complication rates.

Results

The MIPO group showed significantly shorter operative times (97.3 ± 30.8 min vs. 112.2 ± 34.0 min, p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in reduction quality or overall complication rates (MIPO 19.0% vs. ORIF 21.5%). However, functional complications and implant malpositioning showed a non-significant trend toward higher rates in the MIPO group, while hardware-related complications were more frequently observed in the ORIF group.

Conclusion

Our findings support MIPO as a valuable alternative to ORIF for proximal humerus fractures, offering reduced operative time without compromising reduction quality or complication rates. Patient selection, fracture complexity, and surgeon experience should guide technique choice. Appropriate training remains essential, and future prospective studies incorporating functional outcome measures are warranted.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective matched-pair-study.