English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Posttraumatic shoulder stiffness remains a problem after proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite good healing rates. The aim of this pilot study was to determine whether the implant material and overlying soft tissue have an effect on shoulder range of motion (ROM) before and after implant removal (IR). Methods 16 patients (mean age 55.2 ± 15.3 (SD) years; 62.5% female) were included who underwent operative treatment with locking plates of either carbon fiber reinforced Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (PEEKPower® humeral fracture plate, Arthrex, Naples, Florida, USA,  n  = 8) or titanium alloy (Ti) (Philos®, DePuy Synthes, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical, Raynham, Massachusetts, USA,  n  = 8) for PHF. All patients presented with a limited ROM and persistent pain in everyday life after the fracture had healed, whereupon IR was indicated. ROM before and after IR were compared as well as the Constant Score (CS) and the CS compared to the contralateral shoulder (%CS) 1 year after IR. Results In group PEEK, elevation was 116.3° ± 19.2° pre- and 129.4° ± 23.7° post-IR ( p  = 0.027). External rotation was 35.0° ± 7.6° pre- and 50.6° ± 21.8° post-IR ( p  = 0.041). External rotation with the humerus abducted 90° was 38.8° ± 18.1° pre- and 52.5° ± 25.5° post-IR ( p  = 0.024). In group Ti, elevation was 110.0° ± 34.6° pre- and 133.8° ± 31.1° post-IR ( p  = 0.011). External rotation with the humerus at rest was 33.8° ± 23.1° pre- and 48.8° ± 18.7° post-IR ( p  = 0.048). External rotation with the humerus abducted 90° was 40.0° ± 31.6° pre- and 52.5° ± 22.5° post-IR ( p  = 0.011). Comparison of the two implant materials showed no significant difference. The overall CS was 90.3 ± 8.8, the %CS was 91.8% ± 14.7%. Conclusion There was no significant difference in ROM, CS and %CS with respect to plate materials, although lower cell adhesion is reported for the hydrophobic PEEK. However, all patients showed improved functional outcomes after IR in this pilot study. In patients with shoulder stiffness following locked plating for PHF, implants should be removed and open arthrolysis should be performed, independently from the hardware material. Level of evidence II

bmc musculoskeletal disorders

Functional outcomes before and after implant removal in patients with posttraumatic shoulder stiffness and healed proximal humerus fractures: does implant material (PEEK vs. titanium) have an impact? – a pilot study