European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
Does the operative technique (MIPO vs. ORIF) influence surgical outcomes and complications in proximal humerus fractures? A matched-pair analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barthel Christiane, Rudolph Franziska, Kraus Moritz, Kalbas Yannik, Russek Rodd, Pape Hans-Christoph, Allemann Florin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Proximal humerus fractures account for approximately 4-6% of all fractures and are among the most common fractures in the elderly. Surgical treatment is increasingly applied for displaced and unstable fracture patterns. The two most commonly used techniques are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via a deltopectoral approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) using a deltoid-split or anterolateral approach. ORIF allows direct fracture visualization and anatomical reduction but is associated with more extensive surgical exposure. MIPO aims to preserve soft tissues and vascular supply through indirect reduction techniques. This study compares ORIF and MIPO in proximal humerus fractures with regard to surgical parameters, radiographic outcomes, and complications.
METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort of 392 proximal humerus fractures was analyzed. Seventy-nine patients treated with MIPO were matched to 79 patients treated with ORIF using exact matching for fracture type (Mayo FJD classification) and propensity score matching for age and sex. Primary outcomes included operative time, reduction quality, and complication rates.
RESULTS: The MIPO group showed significantly shorter operative times (97.3 ± 30.8 min vs. 112.2 ± 34.0 min, p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in reduction quality or overall complication rates (MIPO 19.0% vs. ORIF 21.5%). However, functional complications and implant malpositioning showed a non-significant trend toward higher rates in the MIPO group, while hardware-related complications were more frequently observed in the ORIF group.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support MIPO as a valuable alternative to ORIF for proximal humerus fractures, offering reduced operative time without compromising reduction quality or complication rates. Patient selection, fracture complexity, and surgeon experience should guide technique choice. Appropriate training remains essential, and future prospective studies incorporating functional outcome measures are warranted.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective matched-pair-study.
METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort of 392 proximal humerus fractures was analyzed. Seventy-nine patients treated with MIPO were matched to 79 patients treated with ORIF using exact matching for fracture type (Mayo FJD classification) and propensity score matching for age and sex. Primary outcomes included operative time, reduction quality, and complication rates.
RESULTS: The MIPO group showed significantly shorter operative times (97.3 ± 30.8 min vs. 112.2 ± 34.0 min, p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in reduction quality or overall complication rates (MIPO 19.0% vs. ORIF 21.5%). However, functional complications and implant malpositioning showed a non-significant trend toward higher rates in the MIPO group, while hardware-related complications were more frequently observed in the ORIF group.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support MIPO as a valuable alternative to ORIF for proximal humerus fractures, offering reduced operative time without compromising reduction quality or complication rates. Patient selection, fracture complexity, and surgeon experience should guide technique choice. Appropriate training remains essential, and future prospective studies incorporating functional outcome measures are warranted.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective matched-pair-study.