• Louis Hustin, Thomas Amouyel, Marc Saab, and Christophe Chantelot.
• Service d'Orthopédie 1 et Traumatologie, Hôpital Roger Salengro, F-59000 Lille, France.
• Injury. 2024 Jun 1; 55 Suppl 1: 111405111405.

ContextMinimally invasive (MI) approaches are purported to present advantages for osteosynthesis when compared with conventional approaches. This study aimed to compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with proximal humerus fractures treated by plate osteosynthesis with conventional and MI superolateral approaches.MethodThe study carried out was a retrospective monocentric comparative analysis. Forty-three cases were followed up - 18 were treated with an MI approach and 25 with a conventional approach. Constant-Murley, DASH and SSV scores were established and standard complications were investigated.ResultsNo significant differences in functional scores or complications were found between the 2 groups. The only significant difference was for pain which was significantly lower for the MI group. The overall revision rate was 18.3 %. The mean adjusted Constant-Murley for the entire population was 80.1 ± 20.2; the mean DASH score was 17.8 ± 15.9 and the mean SSV was 73.2 ± 19.5.ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate any significant differences between the 2 approaches. Given the low patient population in our series, the superiority of the MI approach - as indicated in the literature - was not proven.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

30 keywords...

hide…