Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced 3- and 4-part Proximal Humeral Fractures

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced 3- and 4-part Proximal Humeral Fractures in Patients Older Than 70 Years. A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Proximal humeral fractures are common injuries with the highest incidence being amongst the elderly. Most proximal humeral fractures are nondisplaced or minimally displaced. The majority of these are reliably treated nonoperatively with an acceptable functional outcome. The treatment of displaced fractures is more controversial. Consensus is lacking as to when surgery is indicated or what type of procedure to choose if surgery is elected. Displaced 3- and 4-part fractures where internal fixation is deemed unreliable have been considered an indication for hemiarthroplasty. Hemiarthroplasty gives reasonable control of pain but the resulting shoulder function and range of motion is unpredictable. The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is increasing and might result in a better range of motion then hemiarthroplasty.

The aim of this multicenter study is to test the hypothesis that reverse total shoulder arthroplasty gives better shoulder function than hemiarthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures.

Inclusion criteria

• Displaced 3- or 4-part fracture of the proximal humerus
• Age over 70 years
• Independent living
• Low energy trauma

Exclusion criteria

• Pre-existing shoulder disease
• Severe cognitive dysfunction
• More than 14 days from injury to surgery
• Comorbidity that affects shoulder rehabilitation considerably
• Concurrent injury that affect shoulder rehabilitation considerably