title: Shoulder arthroplasty for fracture: does a fracture-specific stem make a difference?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Arthroplasty for shoulder fractures is a technically challenging and unpredictable procedure and its use is controversial.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We therefore asked (1) to what degree function would be restored, (2) whether tuberosity healing would reliably occur, and (3) whether stem design would influence function in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture.
  
  
  METHODS
  We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with a hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture between September 2001 and May 2006. The first 58 patients (September 2001 to March 2004) were treated with a conventional humeral prosthesis. The next 112 patients (April 2004 to May 2006) were treated with a fracture-specific humeral prosthesis. Clinical measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, visual analog pain scores, and goniometric measurements of glenohumeral motion) and radiographic evaluation of tuberosity healing were performed at minimum 24-month followup (mean, 32 months; range, 24-96 months).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean active anterior elevation was 118°, mean active external rotation 37.6°, and mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score 66. Overall, 127 of 170 (75%) greater tuberosities healed. With respect to stem design, active anterior elevation, active external rotation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were better with fracture-specific stems (129.8°, 39°, and 72, respectively) than with conventional stems (95.4°, 33.0°, and 55, respectively). Fewer tuberosities healed with conventional stems (38 of 58, 66%) than with fracture-specific stems (89 of 112, 79%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of fracture-specific stems during proximal humeral hemiarthroplasty for fracture appears to improve functional use of the injured shoulder and tuberosity healing compared to conventional stems.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
authors: Shoulder Service, The Carrell Clinic, 9301 N Central Expressway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75231, USA. skrishnan@wbcarrellclinic.com
authors: Sumant G
authors: SG
authors: Krishnan
authors: John R
authors: JR
authors: Reineck
authors: Philip D
authors: PD
authors: Bennion
authors: Leanne
authors: L
authors: Feher
authors: Wayne Z
authors: WZ
authors: Burkhead
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1090-103
references: 5455340
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Nov;90(11):1407-13
references: 18978256
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jun;92(6):1560-7
references: 20516334
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Mar;20(2 Suppl):S47-60
references: 21281922
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995 Sep-Oct;4(5):331-6
references: 8548435
references: J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Jan;15(1):12-26
references: 17213379
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;18(2):216-9
references: 19101174
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jul;85(7):1215-23
references: 12851345
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955 Apr;37-A(2):215-28
references: 14367414
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Jul;74(6):884-9
references: 1634578
references: Orthop Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;39(4):441-50, vi
references: 18803974
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Oct;(307):27-36
references: 7924043
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1077-89
references: 5455339
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):569-77
references: 14671521
references: Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:45-57
references: 17472291
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;11(5):401-12
references: 12378157
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994 Nov;3(6):347-52
references: 22958838
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):202-9
references: 18248746