Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparison of the ALPS and PHILOS plating systems in proximal humeral fracture fixation – a retrospective study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 24, Article number: 371 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Open reduction and plate osteosynthesis are considered as a successful technique for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite high complication rates. The objective of our study was to review the clinical outcome and complications of the Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) and compare it to the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS). Our hypothesis was that ranges of motion (ROM) were superior and complication rates were lower with ALPS.

Methods

Twenty patients treated with ALPS for PHF were retrospectively compared to 27 patients treated with PHILOS. Union, ROM and complications were clinically and radiologically assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 18–24 months post-operatively.

Results

Mean age was 52 ± 14 in the ALPS group and 58 ± 13 in the PHILOS group. Last follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 20.6 ± 4.8 months. Mean shoulder abduction was superior with ALPS by 14° (p-value = 0.036), 15° (p-value = 0.049), and 15° (p-value = 0.049) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Mean shoulder external rotation was superior with ALPS by 11° (p-value = 0.032), 15° (p-value = 0.010) and 12° (p-value = 0.016) at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively. At the end of the follow-up, ROM remained better with ALPS, but not significantly. Complication rates over 21 months reached 20% with ALPS and 48% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.045). Implant removal rates reached 10% with ALPS and 37% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.036). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for hardware removal in the ALPS group.

Conclusion

The ALPS group showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Proximal humerus fracture (PHF) is the third most common fracture and accounts for approximately 5% of all adult fractures [1, 2]. PHF commonly affects elderly females due to osteoporosis [3], with a rising incidence after the age of 50 years, and peak after 80 years [1]. With an aging population, a continuous increase in this type of fracture can be expected in the upcoming years and rates estimated to triple between 2008 and 2030 [4]. Along with the expected increase in PHF, understanding the optimal management of this pathology becomes ever more important.

In 47% to 80% of PHF cases, the fracture is non or minimally displaced [1, 5] and is amenable to conservative management with satisfying results [6]. However, fractures including complex morphologies, dislocation or significant displacement may benefit from surgical intervention in selected patients [7]. This remains controversial as some studies question the superiority of operative versus non-operative management of PHF [8,9,10].

Despite the absence of consensus, surgical management remains common practice and various techniques exist, such as nailing, cabling, arthroplasty, and the use of locking plates [11]. Elderly patients with osteoporotic bone mostly benefit from arthroplasty [7, 12], whereas younger patients are mainly treated through closed reduction and internal fixation with intramedullary nailing or open reduction and plate osteosynthesis to achieve satisfactory function [13,14,15,16,17].

Intramedullary nail fixation provides superior performance in terms of stiffness and load to failure in comparison to locking plates [18, 19]. However, rotator cuff and cartilage injuries are risks during nail insertion and shoulder function may be compromised [20]. Hardware-related complications are relatively common and range from 9.3% to 70% [20, 21], with hardware removal required in 7% to 15% of cases [20, 22]. Some studies suggest similar performance and complication rate with nail and locking plates [23, 24] while others suggest superiority with nails [25] and thus further research is required on this subject. Additionally, with the lack of consensus regarding adverse event terminology among various operative shoulder options, it becomes difficult to compare them together [26].

Despite the lack of unanimity on optimal treatment of PHF, locking plates are one of the most advanced options [27]. It is considered by many as a successful technique bringing more stability and improving shoulder ranges of motion (ROM) [7, 24, 28]. However, one of the main drawbacks with locking plates is the high complication rate [27, 29], and studies have reported complication rates of 33% in 7,182 patients [30] and up to 49% in 514 patients [31]. Almost half of the complications are implant-related, with the majority being attributed to screws [30]. According to Sproul et al. [31], varus malunion, subacromial impingement and screw perforation represent 30% of the complications and reoperation rate with locking plates reaches as high as 14% [31, 32].

The Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) (Biomet) (Fig. 1) offers multiple features aiming to address the main complications of locking plates, such as variable angle calcar screws, low-profile plates, and smooth blunt-ended pegs [33]. Variable angle calcar screws provide additional fixation in the inferior medial cortex to avoid varus collapse and malunion. Multi-directional locking screws allow for up to 25° cone of angulation and better screw positioning. Low-profile plates sit at 20 mm distal to the top of the greater tuberosity to avoid subacromial impingement. Smooth blunt-ended pegs replace screws (optional) in the humeral head to minimize articular surface screw perforation.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Plate sitting lower to the greater tuberosity, smooth blunt-ended pegs and calcar screws positioned in the inferior cortex with the ALPS plating system (a) may allow to reduce complications in comparison to plate sitting higher and fixed trajectory calcar screw (b)

Full size image

These features are available with the ALPS plating system, but not with the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS) (Depuy-Synthes) (Fig. 1) which may explain the difference in complication rate. The advantages of medial calcar screws in providing stability and maintaining reduction has been widely demonstrated [34,35,36]. It has also been suggested that the lack of screws in the calcar due to a fixed trajectory locking screw has a negative impact on fixation strength [37]. While the PHILOS plating system only offers fixed trajectory locking screws [38], the multi-directional locking screws available with the ALPS plating system may allow better positioning of the screw inside the calcar (Fig. 2), providing improved construct stability and avoiding secondary displacement potentially leading to malunion. The low-profile plate of the ALPS plating system sits lower than the PHILOS plate at 20 mm distal to the top of the greater tuberosity [33] in comparison to 5–7 mm respectively [38], which may be the reason for lower subacromial impingement rates [39, 40]. Finally, the smooth blunt-ended pegs available with the ALPS plating system may lower articular surface screw perforation. The ALPS plating system has reported equitable union rates, time to union and functional scores compared to other plating system over 31.9 weeks [39] and lower complication rates compared to the PHILOS plating system [40]. However, these studies were limited in terms of follow-up period, number of patients or ethnic group.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Intra-operative (a) and post-operative (b) radiographs of variable angle calcar screw positioning in the inferior cortex with the ALPS plating system

Full size image

Considering that the additional features of the ALPS plating system could lead to better clinical outcomes, the aim of the present retrospective study is to review the performance and safety of the ALPS plating system for the treatment of PHF after a follow-up period of at least 18 months and compare it to the PHILOS plating system. Following previous results of the ALPS plating system [39, 40], we decided to test the hypothesis that ROM were superior and complication rates lower with the ALPS plating system compared to the PHILOS plating system.

Methods

Population

A consecutive series of 20 patients operated between February 2017 and September 2018, treated with the ALPS plating system for PHF were retrospectively selected and reviewed. A consecutive series of 27 patients operated between March 2015 and December 2016, treated with the PHILOS plating system for the same indication were included for comparison. Inclusion criteria were a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus (type 11 according to the AO classification system [41]) and an age of 18 years old or older. Exclusion criteria was ipsilateral upper limb arterial injuries.

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Canton Vaud CER-VD (Date 30.12.2020 / No 2020–01,292). Broad written informed consent was obtained from participants for research studies. If not available, study-specific verbal informed consent was obtained.

Surgical intervention and post-op rehabilitation

All surgeries were performed directly or under supervision of the same fellowship trained upper extremity trauma surgeon (FV). All patients were positioned in the beach chair (except one polytrauma patient which was operated on in the supine position). A delto-pectoral approach was used in all cases. Following open reduction and temporary fixation with K-wires, the quality of reduction was checked under fluoroscopic imaging according to Schnetzke et al. [36]. The plate position was then assessed before drilling the screws and final results were evaluated using fluoroscopic guidance to check screw length and position. Lastly, fractured tuberosities were secured to the plate using number 2 Fiberwire (Arthrex). Patients were protected by a sling for 6 weeks and rehabilitation with a standardized protocol was started on post-operative day 1.

Clinical evaluation

Post-operative clinical follow-ups were performed by an orthopaedic trauma surgeon and were scheduled at 6 weeks, followed by 3, 6, 12 and 18 or 24 months after surgery in our trauma center. Clinical union, ROM and complications were documented at each follow-up. ROM included shoulder flexion, abduction, external rotation and internal rotation. When ROM was reported as “full”, we converted “full” to a numerical value as follows:

  • full flexion was set at 151°, the lowest value of the maximum amplitude range according to orthopaedic scores [42];

  • full abduction was set at 151°, the lowest value of the maximum amplitude range according to orthopaedic scores [42];

  • full external rotation was set and adjusted to age, sex and side according to Gill et al. [43];

  • full internal rotation was set at T7 vertebrae, the maximum amplitude according to orthopaedic scores [42]. As internal rotation was constantly reported descriptively (e.g. T7 vertebrae), we converted internal rotation to a numerical scale from 1 to 20: 1–3 greater trochanter, gluteus maximus and sacrum respectively; 4–8 for distal to proximal lumbar vertebrae; 9–20 for distal to proximal thoracic vertebrae.

Radiographic evaluation

Pre-operative X-rays were retrospectively collected, and fractures were classified according to the Neer [5] and AO [41] classification systems. Post-operative X-rays were subsequently obtained at each follow-up (AP and lateral views) and were retrospectively assessed for union and complications. All radiographic analyses were supervised by the same fellowship trained upper extremity trauma surgeon (FV).

Complications

Intra-operative surgical complications were documented for comparison. Complication rates included both clinical and radiographic aspects and were documented as number of patients with at least one complication, number of complications across all patients and number of complications by type. All complication rates were defined over the follow-up period. Types of complication were recorded as secondary displacement, non-union, avascular necrosis, screw perforation, subacromial impingement, infection, plate failure, nerve palsy, pulmonary embolus and stiffness. Non-union was defined as absence of bone consolidation after 6 months on post-operative X-rays. In case of implant removal, ROM was documented at the last follow-up prior to implant removal and at the first follow-up after removal.

Statistical analysis

We verified the matching of gender, age, BMI, affected side, follow-up length or fracture morphology, between the ALPS and PHILOS groups, with Wilcoxon and Fisher tests. Since some variables did not follow a normal distribution, and because of the relatively limited sample size, we used the non-parametric one-sided and two-sample Wilcoxon tests (Mann–Whitney) to test the hypothesis that the ROM (flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation) were superior for the ALPS than PHILOS plates. We reported effect size (ES) with 95% confidence interval, and p-value. To evaluate the difference of complication rates, and implant removal, between the ALPS and PHILOS plates, we used Fisher's exact test, and reported odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval, and p-value. The normality of the data was evaluated with Shapiro–Wilk test. The statistical analyses were performed with R 4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org).

Results

Population

Twenty patients (mean age 52 ± 14) treated with ALPS (A) plates were compared to 27 patients (mean age 58 ± 13) treated with PHILOS (P) plates. Both groups were not significantly different in terms of patient number, gender, age, BMI, affected side, follow-up length or fracture morphology (Table 1). There were 13 smokers (A 6, P 7) and 9 alcohol consumers (A 5, P 4) excluding occasional or former consumers. No patient had previous shoulder surgery. Mechanism of injury showed no difference (p-value = 0.768) and was distributed in each group as follows: simple fall (A 50%, P 44%), sporting injury (A 20%, P 33%), public road accident (A 15%, P 11%), fall from less than 3 m (A 10%, P 11%), fall from more than 3 m (A 5%). Five (A 3, P 2) patients suffered from polytrauma. One patient had bilateral fractures. One had osteopenia.

Table 1 Patient characteristics according to treatment group
Full size table

Follow-ups

Out of 47 patients, 91% (A 18, P 25) were available for follow-up at 6 weeks, 94% (A 17, P 27) at 3 months, 94% (A 19, P 25) at 6 months, 72% (A 17, P 17) at 12 months and 60% (A 15, P 13) at 18–24 months. One patient was discharged before completing the 18–24 months’ follow-up due to full recovery and one by request of the patient due to satisfactory function. Retrospectively, post-operative clinical follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 6.0 ± 1.3 weeks, 2.9 ± 0.4 months, 6.0 ± 1.0 months, 11.9 ± 1.0 months and 20.6 ± 4.8 months.

Ranges of motion

While mean flexion was predominantly higher in the A group, there was very weak evidence with a small effect size between 3 and 21 months for the superiority of the A group in comparison to the P group (Table 2, Fig. 3).

Table 2 Range of motion
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Shoulder flexion (a), abduction (b), external rotation (c) and internat rotation (d) in the ALPS (orange) and PHILOS (blue) group at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 21 months after surgery. Boxplots include minimum, maximum, median, first and third quartiles

Full size image

Mean abduction was superior in the A group with a small effect size between 3 and 12 months. Mean abduction was higher by 14°, 15° and 15° at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively in comparison to the P group. There was very weak evidence as well for an increase of 21° in abduction with a moderate effect size at 21 months in comparison to the P group.

Mean external rotation was superior in the A group with a moderate effect size between 6 weeks and 6 months. Mean external rotation was higher by 11°, 15° and 12° at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively in comparison to the P group.

While mean internal rotation was predominantly higher in the A group, there was only very weak evidence with a small effect size between 6 weeks and 21 months for the superiority of the A group in comparison to the P group.

Despite a moderate effect size for abduction and better ranges of motion, no significant difference remained at 21 months.

Complications

No intra-operative surgical complications were reported. Twenty-eight post-operative complications among 17 patients (A 4, P 13) were reported (Table 3). In the A group, 20% (4/20) of patients presented at least one complication over 21 months in comparison to 48% (13/27) in the P group (OR = 0.277 [0.000, 0.970], p-value = 0.045). Whilst not statistically different, screw perforation was the predominant complication in both groups (A 10%, P 22%) (Table 3). Other main complications in each group included secondary displacement (A 10%, P 15%) and avascular necrosis (A 10%, P 7%). The following complications were only seen in the P group: subacromial impingement (11%), nerve palsy (7%) (1 transitory hypoesthesia of the median nerve secondary to the supra-clavicular catheter, 1 hypoesthesia of the lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm without motor deficit), stiffness (7%), infection (7%) and pulmonary embolus (4%) (Table 3). Plate failure and non-union were not reported.

Table 3 Complication rates over 21-month follow-up period
Full size table

In the A group, 2/20 patients (10%) required implant removal during the follow-up period compared to 10/27 patients (37%) in the P group (OR = 0.195 [0.000, 0.901], p-value = 0.036) (Table 4). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for implant removal in the A group and counted for 20% of removal in the P group. Other causes in the P group included screw perforation (50%), impingement (20%) and stiffness (10%).

Table 4 Implant removal
Full size table

Discussion

Our analysis to review the performance and safety of the ALPS plating system was based on post-operative clinical and radiological data including 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 21 months. Our results suggest the ALPS plating system is superior to the PHILOS plating system in terms of abduction, external rotation and complication rates.

Regarding ROM, flexion, abduction, external rotation and internal rotation were higher in the ALPS group and for all the follow-up periods but the difference was statistically significant only for abduction and external rotation. After 21 months, no significant difference remained. In other words, the ALPS plate was associated with a statistically faster recovery, what may be explained by the ALPS plate sitting lower than the PHILOS plate. We did not see any statistical difference regarding functional outcome at last follow-up.

Complication rate in the ALPS group (20%) was 2.5 times lower than in the PHILOS group (48%). These findings corroborated early results reporting a complication rate of 22.6% on 31 patients treated with the ALPS plating system [40]. As it has been suggested that the incidence of avascular necrosis increased after 12 months [44], we reported late complications due to a follow-up period of 18 months or more (Fig. 4). This allows a more comprehensive understanding of short-term outcomes compared to previous studies which have shorter follow-up periods [39, 40]. Complication rate in the PHILOS group (48%) was comparable to some published studies (values up to 50% in 110 patients treated with the PHILOS plating system [45], and up to 49% in 514 patients [31]) but higher than some other locking plates (13% in 646 patients [46]).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Long follow-up period allowed to report late complications with this patient with no complication at 6 months (a) and avascular necrosis at 12 months (b)

Full size image

The main complication rates (secondary displacement, avascular necrosis, screw perforation and subacromial impingement) are presented in Table 5. We found complication rates consistent with the literature, except for screw perforation in the PHILOS group. Whilst not statistically different, screw perforation rate was lower in the ALPS group, what may be explained due to the use of smooth blunt-ended pegs offered by the ALPS plating system instead of screws. Whilst not statistically different, subacromial impingement and stiffness rates were lower in the ALPS group, what may be explained due to the low profile offered by the ALPS plating system. Regarding infections, 0% were deep infections and 7% were low grade infections (the two cases were late infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes which was found after implant removal secondary to avascular necrosis).

Table 5 Comparison of main complication rates
Full size table

Implant removal secondary to avascular necrosis was the only cause requiring reoperation in the A group. On the other hand, causes for implant removal in the P group included avascular necrosis, screw perforation, impingement, or stiffness. In the literature, short term reoperation rates with the ALPS plating system were between 3.2% in 31 patients at 13 months [40] and 13% in 15 patients at 31.9 weeks [39]. This reoperation rate reached 18% with the PHILOS plating system at 2.5 years [45] and 14% in previous studies including several locking plates [31, 32]. Our results with the ALPS plating system were therefore consistent with recent studies and reported a lower reoperation rate than with other plates. Further studies with a bigger sample size are therefore required to confirm these rates.

To underline the strengths of this study, all surgeries were performed by the same fellowship trained upper extremity trauma surgeon in one single trauma center using identical surgical approach and rehabilitation protocol. All post-operative radiographic analyses were supervised by this same surgeon. The design of our study included a mean follow-up period of 21 months, which is longer than all previous studies involving the ALPS plating system and allowed us to report performance and complications on a longer period.

The first limitation is the retrospective nature of this study. Further randomized control trials are required to confirm the results presented here. The second limitation is the small sample size. Additionally, missing data in the reporting of ROM was converted to numerical value according to [42, 43] as described in paragraph II.C. Finally, although ROM was also collected before and after implant removal, this data was not compared between both groups due to the low number of patients who were affected in the ALPS group.

Conclusion

With a total of 47 patients and a mean follow-up period of 21 months, this study allowed us to better estimate short-term outcomes and complications of the ALPS plating system. The ALPS plating system showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ALPS:

Anatomic Locking Plate System

ES:

Effect size

IQR:

Interquartile range

OR:

Odd ratio

PHF:

Proximal humerus fracture

PHILOS:

Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System

ROM:

Ranges of motion

References

  1. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(4):365–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164701753542023. PMID: 11580125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Launonen AP, Lepola V, Flinkkilä T, Strandberg N, Ojanperä J, Rissanen P, Malmivaara A, Mattila VM, Elo P, Viljakka T, Laitinen M. Conservative treatment, plate fixation, or prosthesis for proximal humeral fracture. A prospective randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:167. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-167. PMID: 22954329; PMCID: PMC3520878.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsson C, Nordqvist A, Petersson CJ. Increased fragility in patients with fracture of the proximal humerus: a case control study. Bone. 2004;34(6):1072–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2004.01.009. PMID: 15193555.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hepp P, Theopold J, Voigt C, Engel T, Josten C, Lill H. The surgical approach for locking plate osteosynthesis of displaced proximal humeral fractures influences the functional outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1):21–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.029. Epub 2007 Nov 1 PMID: 17936024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: part I. Classification and evaluation. 1970. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000198718.91223.ca. PMID: 16394743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gaebler C, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Minimally displaced proximal humeral fractures: epidemiology and outcome in 507 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(5):580–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310017992. PMID: 14620980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nowak LL, Dehghan N, McKee MD, Schemitsch EH. Plate fixation for management of humerus fractures. Injury. 2018;49(Suppl 1):S33–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30300-0. PMID: 29929690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beks RB, Ochen Y, Frima H, Smeeing DPJ, van der Meijden O, Timmers TK, van der Velde D, van Heijl M, Leenen LPH, Groenwold RHH, Houwert RM. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(8):1526–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.009. Epub 2018 May 4 PMID: 29735376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ, Rollins KE. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD000434. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub3. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;11:CD000434. PMID: 23235575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Launonen AP, Sumrein BO, Reito A, Lepola V, Paloneva J, Jonsson KB, Wolf O, Ström P, Berg HE, Felländer-Tsai L, Jansson KÅ, Fell D, Mechlenburg I, Døssing K, Østergaard H, Märtson A, Laitinen MK, Mattila VM, as the NITEP group. Operative versus non-operative treatment for 2-part proximal humerus fracture: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(7):e1002855. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002855. PMID: 31318863; PMCID: PMC6638737.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M, Luo C, Plecko M, Wendt K, Köstler W, Konrad G. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1320–8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00006. PMID: 19487508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim E, Shin HK, Kim CH. Characteristics of an isolated greater tuberosity fracture of the humerus. J Orthop Sci. 2005;10(5):441–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-005-0924-6. PMID: 16193353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1090–103 PMID: 5455340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hauschild O, Konrad G, Audige L, de Boer P, Lambert SM, Hertel R, Südkamp NP. Operative versus non-operative treatment for two-part surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(10):1385–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1798-2. Epub 2013 Jul 3 PMID: 23820852.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Ponzer S, Saving J, Tidermark J. Internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):747–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.12.018. Epub 2011 Mar 24 PMID: 21435907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lanting B, MacDermid J, Drosdowech D, Faber KJ. Proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of treatment modalities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1):42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.016. PMID: 18308203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Plath JE, Kerschbaum C, Seebauer T, Holz R, Henderson DJH, Förch S, Mayr E. Locking nail versus locking plate for proximal humeral fracture fixation in an elderly population: a prospective randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2399-1.PMID:30630465;PMCID:PMC6329164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Clavert P, Hatzidakis A, Boileau P. Anatomical and biomechanical evaluation of an intramedullary nail for fractures of proximal humerus fractures based on tuberosity fixation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016;32:108–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.12.005. Epub 2015 Dec 22 PMID: 26743868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Füchtmeier B, May R, Hente R, Maghsudi M, Völk M, Hammer J, Nerlich M, Prantl L. Proximal humerus fractures: a comparative biomechanical analysis of intra and extramedullary implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(6):441–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0319-6. Epub 2007 Apr 25 PMID: 17457598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Greiwe M. Shoulder and elbow trauma and its complications. vol. 1. Greiwe. Elsevier; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-01766-2.

  21. Giannoudis PV, Xypnitos FN, Dimitriou R, Manidakis N, Hackney R. Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures using the Polarus intramedullary nail: our institutional experience and review of the literature. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-7-39. PMID:23253302;PMCID:PMC3554551.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hatzidakis AM, Shevlin MJ, Fenton DL, Curran-Everett D, Nowinski RJ, Fehringer EV. Angular-stable locked intramedullary nailing of two-part surgical neck fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. A multicenter retrospective observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(23):2172–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00754. PMID: 22159852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sun Q, Ge W, Li G, Wu J, Lu G, Cai M, Li S. Locking plates versus intramedullary nails in the management of displaced proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2018;42(3):641–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3683-z. Epub 2017 Nov 9 PMID: 29119298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burkhart KJ, Dietz SO, Bastian L, Thelen U, Hoffmann R, Müller LP. The treatment of proximal humeral fracture in adults. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(35–36):591–7. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0591. Epub 2013 Sep 2. PMID: 24078839; PMCID: PMC3785018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Shi X, Liu H, Xing R, Mei W, Zhang L, Ding L, Huang Z, Wang P. Effect of intramedullary nail and locking plate in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture: an update systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1345-0. PMID:31470878;PMCID:PMC6717341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Alispahic N, Brorson S, Bahrs C, Joeris A, Steinitz A, Audigé L. Complications after surgical management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of event terms and definitions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):327. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03353-8. PMID:32456631;PMCID:PMC7251821.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Leonard M, Mokotedi L, Alao U, Glynn A, Dolan M, Fleming P. The use of locking plates in proximal humeral fractures: Comparison of outcome by patient age and fracture pattern. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2009;3(4):85–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.63214. PMID:20532009;PMCID:PMC2878702.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cornell CN, Ayalon O. Evidence for success with locking plates for fragility fractures. HSS J. 2011;7(2):164–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-010-9194-8. Epub 2011 Feb 1. PMID: 22754418; PMCID: PMC3145849.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P, Kohut G, Ekelund A, Muller M, Audigé L, Babst R. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(3):163–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181920e5b. PMID: 19516088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Panagiotopoulou VC, Varga P, Richards RG, Gueorguiev B, Giannoudis PV. Late screw-related complications in locking plating of proximal humerus fractures: A systematic review. Injury. 2019;50(12):2176–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.002. Epub 2019 Nov 6 PMID: 31727401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sproul RC, Iyengar JJ, Devcic Z, Feeley BT. A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2011;42(4):408–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.058. Epub 2010 Dec 19 PMID: 21176833.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P. Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):837–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.06.004. Epub 2009 Sep 12 PMID: 19748802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. ALPS proximal humerus plating system surgical technique. https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zimmer-biomet/medical-professionals/000-surgical-techniques/trauma/alps-proximal-humerus-plating-system-surgical-technique1.pdf [Online; accessed 2021–05–12]

  34. Bai L, Fu Z, An S, Zhang P, Zhang D, Jiang B. Effect of Calcar Screw Use in Surgical Neck Fractures of the Proximal Humerus With Unstable Medial Support: A Biomechanical Study. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(8):452–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000057. PMID: 24662994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Osterhoff G, Ossendorf C, Wanner GA, Simmen HP, Werner CM. The calcar screw in angular stable plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures–a case study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-50. PMID:21943090;PMCID:PMC3189144.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Schnetzke M, Bockmeyer J, Porschke F, Studier-Fischer S, Grützner PA, Guehring T. Quality of reduction influences outcome after locked-plate fixation of proximal humeral type-C fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(21):1777–85. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00112. PMID: 27807109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mehta S, Chin M, Sanville J, Namdari S, Hast MW. Calcar screw position in proximal humerus fracture fixation: Don’t miss high! Injury. 2018;49(3):624–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Feb 11. PMID: 29452734; PMCID: PMC7413303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. PHILOS and PHILOS long surgical technique. http://synthes.vo.llnwd.net/o16/LLNWMB8/INT%20Mobile/Synthes%20International/Product%20Support%20Material/legacy_Synthes_PDF/DSEM-TRM-0815-0449-1_LR.pdf [Online; accessed 2021–05–14]

  39. Argyropoulos M, Kent M. Early Results of the A.L.P.S. Proximal humerus locking plate. Open Orthop J. 2018;12:53–8. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001812010053. PMID: 29541270; PMCID: PMC5842388.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen CY, Chang HW, Hsieh SL, Chang CC, Tsai CH, Chen YW, Lin TL, Hsu CJ. Preliminary clinical and radiographic outcomes of proximal humeral fractures: comparison of ALPS and PHILOS plating in Asian patients in Taiwan. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):364. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01846-9. PMID:32859221;PMCID:PMC7456013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Meinberg EG, Agel J, Roberts CS, Karam MD, Kellam JF. Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(Suppl 1):S1–170. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063. PMID: 29256945.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Orthopaedic scores. http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/ [Online; accessed 2020–12–14]

  43. Gill TK, Shanahan EM, Tucker GR, Buchbinder R, Hill CL. Shoulder range of movement in the general population: age and gender stratified normative data using a community-based cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):676. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03665-9. PMID:33046038;PMCID:PMC7549223.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Greiner S, Kääb MJ, Haas NP, Bail HJ. Humeral head necrosis rate at mid-term follow-up after open reduction and angular stable plate fixation for proximal humeral fractures. Injury. 2009;40(2):186–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2008.05.030. Epub 2008 Dec 18 PMID: 19100544.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Laflamme GY, Moisan P, Chapleau J, Goulet J, Leduc S, Benoit B, Rouleau DM. Novel technical factors affecting proximal humerus fixation stability. J Orthop Trauma. 2021;35(5):259–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001984. PMID: 33165208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Haasters F, Siebenbürger G, Helfen T, Daferner M, Böcker W, Ockert B. Complications of locked plating for proximal humeral fractures-are we getting any better? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):e295-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.015. Epub 2016 Apr 11 PMID: 27079217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Antoine Dewarrat & Frédéric Vauclair

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Alexandre Terrier & Frédéric Vauclair

  3. Laboratory of Biomechanical Orthopedics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 9, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Alexandre Terrier

  4. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Bardia Barimani

  5. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Bardia Barimani

Authors
  1. Antoine Dewarrat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandre Terrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bardia Barimani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frédéric Vauclair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FV conceived the presented idea. FV and AD contributed to the design and implementation of the research. AD processed the data and wrote the manuscript with support from FV, AT and BB. AT performed the statistical analysis and designed the figures. FV, AT and BB verified the analytical methods and supervised the findings of this work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antoine Dewarrat.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and of IHC-GCP, as well as national legal and regulatory requirements. Approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Canton Vaud CER-VD (Date 30.12.2020 / No 2020–01292). Broad written informed consent was obtained from participants for research studies. If not available, study-specific verbal informed consent was obtained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dewarrat, A., Terrier, A., Barimani, B. et al. Comparison of the ALPS and PHILOS plating systems in proximal humeral fracture fixation – a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 371 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06477-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06477-9

Keywords