Comparing long and intermediate-length plates for metastatic bone disease of the proximal humerus: A retrospective analysis

Abstract

AimsManaging proximal humerus pathologic fractures requires strategic planning to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Traditionally, fixation of the humerus using long devices has been considered the standard of care, but emerging evidence has challenged this approach. This study aimed to compare long plates (LPs) and intermediate-length plates (IPs) in this clinical context. MethodsForty-four patients with proximal humerus metastatic bone disease were retrospectively studied from 2013 to 2019, with 11 (25%) receiving long plates (LPs) and 33 (75%) intermediate-length plates (IPs). Outcomes included tumor progression, reoperation rates, postoperative anemia, blood loss, operation time, and hospitalization duration. Tumor progression was classified into three categories, with Type III progression (new metastatic lesions in the distal humerus) theoretically benefiting most from whole bone stabilization. ResultsTumor progression occurred in three patients (7%), all of them was in IPs. No revision surgery was needed to address these tumor progressions, including one type III progression which occurred 34 months postoperatively after IP surgery. IP were associated with a reduced operation time compared with LP (median, 1.5 h [IQR, 1.2–1.9] vs. 2.4 [IQR, 1.7–2.5]; p = 0.004). No differences were found for the other perioperative outcomes. ConclusionsOur findings reveal a low incidence of tumor progression and low reoperation rates in both groups. The shortened operative time associated with IP use suggests its particular suitability for patients with limited life expectancy. Further research is needed to elucidate the ideal prosthesis length that best balances the risks and benefits when addressing proximal humerus metastatic disease.