Surgery with locking plate or hemiarthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment of 3-4-part proximal humerus fractures in older patients (NITEP): An open-label randomized trial.


Journal

PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 28 04 2023
accepted: 04 10 2023
medline: 30 11 2023
pubmed: 28 11 2023
entrez: 28 11 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common fractures, especially in older female patients. These fractures are commonly treated surgically, but the consensus on the best treatment is still lacking. The primary aim of this multicenter, randomized 3-arm superiority, open-label trial was to assess the results of nonoperative treatment and operative treatment either with locking plate (LP) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) of 3- and 4-part PHF with the primary outcome of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) at 2-year follow-up. Between February 2011 and December 2019, 160 patients 60 years and older with 3- and 4-part PHFs were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 fashion in block size of 10 to undergo nonoperative treatment (control) or operative intervention with LP or HA. In total, 54 patients were assigned to the nonoperative group, 52 to the LP group, and 54 to the HA group. Five patients assigned to the LP group were reassigned to the HA group perioperatively due to high comminution, and all of these patients had 4-part fractures. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were 42 patients in the nonoperative group, 44 in the LP group, and 37 in the HA group. The outcome assessors were blinded to the study group. The mean DASH score at 2-year follow-up was 30.4 (standard error (SE) 3.25), 31.4 (SE 3.11), and 26.6 (SE 3.23) points for the nonoperative, LP, and HA groups, respectively. At 2 years, the between-group differences were 1.07 points (95% CI [-9.5,11.7]; p = 0.97) between nonoperative and LP, 3.78 points (95% CI [-7.0,14.6]; p = 0.69) between nonoperative and HA, and 4.84 points (95% CI [-5.7,15.4]; p = 0.53) between LP and HA. No significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes were seen in stratified age groups (60 to 70 years and 71 years and over). At 2 years, we found 30 complications (3/52, 5.8% in nonoperative; 22/49, 45% in LP; and 5/49, 10% in HA group, p = 0.0004) and 16 severe pain-related adverse events. There was a revision rate of 22% in the LP group. The limitation of the trial was that the recruitment period was longer than expected due to a high number of exclusions after the assessment of eligibility and a larger exclusion rate than anticipated toward the end of the trial. Therefore, the trial was ended prematurely. In this study, no benefit was observed between operative treatment with LP or HA and nonoperative treatment in displaced 3- and 4-part PHFs in patients aged 60 years and older. Further, we observed a high rate of complications related to operative treatments. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01246167.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common fractures, especially in older female patients. These fractures are commonly treated surgically, but the consensus on the best treatment is still lacking.
METHODS AND FINDINGS RESULTS
The primary aim of this multicenter, randomized 3-arm superiority, open-label trial was to assess the results of nonoperative treatment and operative treatment either with locking plate (LP) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) of 3- and 4-part PHF with the primary outcome of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) at 2-year follow-up. Between February 2011 and December 2019, 160 patients 60 years and older with 3- and 4-part PHFs were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 fashion in block size of 10 to undergo nonoperative treatment (control) or operative intervention with LP or HA. In total, 54 patients were assigned to the nonoperative group, 52 to the LP group, and 54 to the HA group. Five patients assigned to the LP group were reassigned to the HA group perioperatively due to high comminution, and all of these patients had 4-part fractures. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were 42 patients in the nonoperative group, 44 in the LP group, and 37 in the HA group. The outcome assessors were blinded to the study group. The mean DASH score at 2-year follow-up was 30.4 (standard error (SE) 3.25), 31.4 (SE 3.11), and 26.6 (SE 3.23) points for the nonoperative, LP, and HA groups, respectively. At 2 years, the between-group differences were 1.07 points (95% CI [-9.5,11.7]; p = 0.97) between nonoperative and LP, 3.78 points (95% CI [-7.0,14.6]; p = 0.69) between nonoperative and HA, and 4.84 points (95% CI [-5.7,15.4]; p = 0.53) between LP and HA. No significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes were seen in stratified age groups (60 to 70 years and 71 years and over). At 2 years, we found 30 complications (3/52, 5.8% in nonoperative; 22/49, 45% in LP; and 5/49, 10% in HA group, p = 0.0004) and 16 severe pain-related adverse events. There was a revision rate of 22% in the LP group. The limitation of the trial was that the recruitment period was longer than expected due to a high number of exclusions after the assessment of eligibility and a larger exclusion rate than anticipated toward the end of the trial. Therefore, the trial was ended prematurely.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In this study, no benefit was observed between operative treatment with LP or HA and nonoperative treatment in displaced 3- and 4-part PHFs in patients aged 60 years and older. Further, we observed a high rate of complications related to operative treatments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01246167.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38015877
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004308
pii: PMEDICINE-D-23-01175
pmc: PMC10683994
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01246167']

Types de publication

Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1004308

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Launonen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Acta Orthop. 2015 Jun;86(3):280-5
pubmed: 25574643
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Dec;470(12):3483-91
pubmed: 22895694
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1090-103
pubmed: 5455340
Acta Orthop Scand. 1999 Aug;70(4):325-8
pubmed: 10569259
ANZ J Surg. 2016 Apr;86(4):280-4
pubmed: 26887373
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):355-61
pubmed: 18218327
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jan;29(1):e22-e28
pubmed: 31466891
Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):533-57
pubmed: 25909341
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1419-26
pubmed: 25086490
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Mar;28(3):901-907
pubmed: 27787593
Biometrics. 1946 Dec;2(6):110-4
pubmed: 20287815
BMC Res Notes. 2013 Feb 25;6:69
pubmed: 23442552
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Apr;22(4):542-9
pubmed: 22959524
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 21;6:CD000434
pubmed: 35727196
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Nov-Dec;18(6):927-32
pubmed: 19535272
JAMA. 2015 Mar 10;313(10):1037-47
pubmed: 25756440
Bone Joint J. 2020 Nov;102-B(11):1484-1490
pubmed: 33135440
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Jul;78(4):593-600
pubmed: 8682827
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Jun 27;13:114
pubmed: 22738149
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jul;20(5):747-55
pubmed: 21435907
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1077-89
pubmed: 5455339
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003 Jun 16;4:11
pubmed: 12809562
J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Feb;26(2):98-106
pubmed: 21804410
PLoS Med. 2019 Jul 18;16(7):e1002855
pubmed: 31318863
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1125-32
pubmed: 21481611
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Sep 07;13:167
pubmed: 22954329
Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:209
pubmed: 25675881
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7
pubmed: 22618581
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1025-33
pubmed: 21783385
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jan;26(1):e1-e12
pubmed: 27745806
Osteoporos Int. 2023 Feb;34(2):349-356
pubmed: 36435907
Int Orthop. 2002;26(5):271-3
pubmed: 12378351
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Dec;75(12):1745-50
pubmed: 8258543
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Dec;36(12):2090-3
pubmed: 20689933

Auteurs

Antti P Launonen (AP)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.

Bakir O Sumrein (BO)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.

Aleksi Reito (A)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.

Vesa Lepola (V)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.

Juha Paloneva (J)

Department of Surgery, Hospital Nova, Wellbeing Services County of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland.
University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.

Hans E Berg (HE)

Division of Orthopedics and Biotechnology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden.

Li Felländer-Tsai (L)

Division of Orthopedics and Biotechnology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden.

Kristo Kask (K)

Department of Orthopaedics, North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia.

Timo Rahnel (T)

Department of Orthopaedics, North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia.

Kaspar Tootsi (K)

Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia.
Orthopaedics clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia.

Aare Märtson (A)

Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia.
Orthopaedics clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia.

Kenneth B Jonsson (KB)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Olof Wolf (O)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Peter Ström (P)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Kaj Døssing (K)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark.

Helle K Østergaard (HK)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark.

Inger Mechlenburg (I)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Ville M Mattila (VM)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.

Minna K Laitinen (MK)

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa, Tampere, Finland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH