Skip to main content

Table 1 Sociodemographic data and the clinical outcomes according to the presence of medial support

From: Does medial support decrease major complications of unstable proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plate?

 

MS+ (n=36)

MS- (n=27)

Total (63)

Av. Neer’s score

P-value

Sex

M: 9, F:27*

M:11, F:16*

  

0.184

Age(yr)

62.5

61.7

62.2

 

0.739

Osteoporosis(%)

20 (56)

16 (59)

36

 

0.769

Fracture Type

     

2 part

25 (69)

17 (63)

42

  

3 part

10 (28)

8 (30)

18

 

0.673

4 part

1 (3)

2 (7)

3

  

Neer criteria

     

Excellent (>89)

14 (38.9)

7 (25.9)

21 (33.3)

  

Satisfactory(80–90)

15 (41.7)

10 (37.0)

25 (39.7)

  

Unsatisfactory(70–79)

7 (19.4)

4 (14.9)

11 (17.5)

  

Failure(<70)

0(0)

6 (22.2)

6 (9.5)

  

Av. Neer’s score

85.7 ± 7.8

78.0 ± 14.2

82.4 ± 11.5

 

0.008

Paavolainen Score

     

Good (>130±10°)

32 (88.9)

17 (62.9)

49 (77.8)

84.9 ± 8.3

 

Fair (100-120°)

4 (11.1)

7 (26.0)

11 (17.5)

80.6 ± 9.9

0.004

Poor(<100°)

0 (0)

3 (11.1)

3 (4.8)

48.0 ± 6.1

 

Av. NSA

130.4 ± 9.5

123.5 ± 21.3

127.4 ± 15.9

 

0.574

  1. Values are given as number (percentage).
  2. *one female have bilateral proximal humerus fractures.
  3. MS+ = medial support group, MS- = non-medial support group, M = male, F = female, NSA = neck-shaft angle.