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.