Trends and variation in incidence, surgical treatment, and repeat surgery of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly.
BACKGROUND
the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly remains controversial. Options include nonoperative treatment, open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF), and hemiarthroplasty. Locking plate technology has expanded the indications for ORIF for certain fracture types in osteoporotic bone. This study was performed to characterize the incidence, treatment, and revision surgery of proximal humeral fractures according to geographic region both before (1999 to 2000) and after (2004 to 2005) the introduction of locking plates.


METHODS
we used a 20% sample of Medicare Part-B data and the Medicare denominator file for the years 1998 to 2006. Proximal humeral fractures were identified by Common Procedural Terminology codes for treatment, categorized as nonoperative, ORIF, or hemiarthroplasty. Geographic variation in treatment type was determined with use of 306 hospital referral regions. Odds ratios for revision surgery were calculated by the need for repeat surgery within one year of the index procedure. Rates were adjusted for age, sex, race, and comorbidities.


RESULTS
there were 14,774 proximal humeral fractures in the 20% sample from 1999 to 2000 (an estimated total of 73,870 fractures) and 16,138 fractures in the sample from 2004 to 2005 (an estimated total of 80,690 fractures). The overall age, sex, and race-adjusted incidence of proximal humeral fractures was unchanged from 1999 to 2005 (2.47 vs. 2.48 per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries; p = 0.992). However, the absolute rate of surgically managed proximal humeral fractures rose 3.2 percentage points from 12.5% to 15.7%, a relative increase of 25.6% (p < 0.0001). The relative increase in the percentage of fractures treated with ORIF was 28.5% (p < 0.0001), while the percentage of fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty increased 19.6% (p < 0.0001). There were large regional variations in the proportion treated surgically (range, 0% to 68.18%). The rates of repeat surgery were significantly higher in 2004 to 2005 compared with 1999 to 2000 (odds ratio = 1.47, p = 0.043).


CONCLUSIONS
although the incidence of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly did not change from 1999 to 2005, the rate of surgical treatment increased significantly. The marked regional variation in the rates of surgical treatment highlights the need for better consensus regarding optimal treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Additional research is needed to help to determine which fractures are best treated operatively in order to maximize outcome and minimize the need for revision surgery.


METHODS
therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
John-Erik
JE
Bell
Brian C
BC
Leung
Kevin F
KF
Spratt
Ken J
KJ
Koval
James D
JD
Weinstein
David C
DC
Goodman
Anna N A
AN
Tosteson
D017677:Age Distribution; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D016208:Databases, Factual; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends; D017102:Fracture Healing / Q000502:physiology; D015577:Geriatric Assessment; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D015601:Injury Severity Score; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D006278:Medicare; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011859:Radiography; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology; D012042:Registries; D012086:Reoperation; D017678:Sex Distribution; D012784:Shoulder Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000601:surgery*; D014481:United States
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD000434
14583921
Osteoporos Int. 2004 Oct;15(10):834-41
15045468
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 May;79(3):412-7
9180319
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Oct;467(10):2506-11
19452236
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005 Aug;17(4):276-80
16285192
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995 Mar-Apr;4(2):81-6
7600169
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Aug;83(6):799-804
11521917
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 Oct;19(9):635-9
16247309
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jun;91(6):1313-9
19487507
Med Care. 1994 Jul;32(7):700-15
8028405
Acta Orthop Scand. 1984 Feb;55(1):48-51
6702428
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1077-89
5455339
Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:363-9
15948465
Osteoporos Int. 2007 Sep;18(9):1225-33
17384897
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 1;31(23):2707-14
17077740
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Oct;(179):116-28
6617003
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006 Apr;14(4):246-55
16585366
N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 13;331(15):989-95
8084356
Injury. 1998 Jun;29(5):349-52
9813677
J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(10):676-81
17986883
Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Oct;71(5):465-70
11186402
Injury. 2001 Jun;32(5):363-72
11382420
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 15;160(4):360-7
15286021
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 May;84(4):504-8
12043768
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Mar;52(3):243-9
10210242
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):569-77
14671521
Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2004;62(1-2):24-32
15517854
Acta Orthop Belg. 2001 Jun;67(3):226-32
11486683
J Trauma. 1985 Aug;25(8):801-5
4020916
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005 Jun;125(5):310-6
15843948
Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Aug;72(4):365-71
11580125
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;14(5):497-505
16194741
N Engl J Med. 2003 Oct 2;349(14):1350-9
14523144
Ann Epidemiol. 1996 May;6(3):209-16
8827156
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 Oct;(112):250-3
1192641
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2004;71(6):329-38
15686633