Rehabilitation Following Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures

Shoulder Fractures

Proximal humerus fractures, Proximal humeral fractures, Randomized controlled trial, Shoulder fractures, Non-operative treatment, Rehabilitation

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are the third most common non-vertebral fractures in the elderly. Most elderly experience loss of function following a PHF regardless of treatment. A Cochrane review from 2015 concluded that surgical management is not superior to non-surgical management, and that the optimal non-surgical management after PHF is not known. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of usual rehabilitation care after displaced PHF compared with one-time physiotherapy instruction.

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are the closely related to osteoporosis. The lifetime risk of suffering a PHF in females aged 50 or above is 13%. About half of the fractures are minimally displaced and usually managed by short immobilization, analgetics, and early mobilization. The remaining half of the patients suffer from displaced fractures, traditionally managed surgically by open reduction and internal fixation or shoulder replacement. Within the last decades, an increasing number of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have failed to document the superiority of surgical management in displaced PHFs. Therefore, an increasing number of patients are being offered nonsurgical treatment consisting of immobilization followed by rehabilitation that may vary across countries and regions. Most elderly experience loss of function following a PHF regardless of treatment. However, optimal management and recovery of function are paramount to prevent a substantial impact on the patient's independent living and morbidity. A systematic review and metaanalysis from 2021 concluded a need for high-quality RCTs to substantiate the current evidence regarding the need for supervision after a PHF. It is assumed that rehabilitation delivered as structured training benefits patients with PHFs, but this is not known from current evidence. It is possible that patients are even harmed with intensive training programmes. Most RCTs with a non-surgically treated group use the same exercise intervention in the two groups to best identify the difference between surgery and non-surgical treatment. Therefore, the effect of training cannot be concluded from these studies. This is supported by an expectation of more nonsurgically treated displaced PHFs due to the growing evidence of no benefit from surgery. The current study is a prerequisite for future rehabilitation studies comparing different training modalities. Therefore, this study aims is to evaluate the effectiveness of usual rehabilitation care after displaced PHF compared with one-time physiotherapy instruction.

Denmark