Factors influencing surgical management of proximal humerus fractures: do shoulder and trauma surgeons differ?

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), hemiarthroplasty (HA), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), or nonoperatively. Given the mixed results in the literature, the optimal treatment is unclear to surgeons. The purpose of this study was to survey orthopedic shoulder and trauma surgeons to identify the patient- and fracture-related characteristics that influence surgical decision-making. Methods: We distributed a 23-question closed-response email survey to members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Orthopaedic Trauma Association. Questions posed to respondents included demographics, surgical planning, indications for ORIF and arthroplasty, and the use of surgical augmentation with ORIF. Numerical and multiple-choice responses were compared between shoulder and trauma surgeons using unpaired t-tests and χ² tests, respectively. Results: Respondents included 172 shoulder and 78 trauma surgeons. When surgery is indicated, most shoulder and trauma surgeons treat 2-part (69%) and 3-part (53%) PHFs with ORIF. Indications for managing PHFs with arthroplasty instead of ORIF include an intra-articular fracture (82%), bone quality (76%), age (72%), and previous rotator cuff dysfunction (70%). In patients older than 50 years, 90% of respondents cited a head-split fracture as an indication for arthroplasty. Both shoulder and trauma surgeons preferred RSA for treating PHFs presenting with a head-split fracture in an elderly patient (94%), pre-existing rotator cuff tear (84%), and pre-existing glenohumeral arthritis with an intact cuff (75%). Similarly, both groups preferred ORIF for PHFs in young patients with a fracture dislocation (94%). In contrast, although most trauma surgeons preferred to manage PHFs in low functioning patients with a significantly displaced fracture or nonreconstructable injury nonoperatively (84% and 86%, respectively), shoulder surgeons preferred either RSA (44% and 46%, respectively) or nonoperative treatment (54% and 49%, respectively) (P < .001). Similarly, although trauma surgeons preferred to manage PHFs in young patients with a head-split fracture or limited humeral head subchondral bone with ORIF (98% and 87%, respectively), shoulder surgeons preferred either ORIF (54% and 62%, respectively) or HA (43% and 34%, respectively) (P < .001). Conclusions: ORIF and HA are preferred for treating simple PHFs in young patients with good bone quality or fracture dislocations, whereas RSA and nonoperative management are preferred for complex fractures in elderly patients with poor bone quality, rotator cuff dysfunction, or osteoarthritis. The preferred management differed between shoulder and trauma surgeons for half of the common PHF presentations, highlighting the need for future research.