Locking Plate Fixation versus Hemiarthroplasty for Complex Proximal Humeral Fractures: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract BackgroundThis updated systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare clinical efficacy and safety of locking plate fixation (LPF) and hemiarthroplasty (HAP) for surgical treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures (PHFs).MethodsFive electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang database and the Cochrane Library) were searched from their start dates to July 2020 to identify all relevant studies. Our main endpoints were Constant–Murley score (efficacy), and method-related complications and revisions (safety). Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.3 was used for meta-analysis.ResultsSixteen retrospective trials and one randomized controlled trial involving a total of 936 patients (506 patients in the LPF group and 430 patients in the HAP group) were included in this analysis. The Constant–Murley score was significantly higher with LPF than with HAP [SMD=0.73, 95%CI: (0.23, 1.22)]. In subgroup analysis however, there was no significant difference in Constant-Murley score between LPF and HAP for four-part fractures [SMD=0.35, 95%CI (-0.07, 0.77)] or for subjects over 60 years of age [SMD=0.54, 95%CI: (-0.45, 1.52)]. Revision rate [OR=3.61, 95%CI (1.99, 6.56)] and postoperative complications [OR=1.80, 95%CI (1.24, 2.61)] were significantly lower with HAP than with LPF.ConclusionsIn general, for treatment of complex PHFs, LPF was superior to HAP in postoperative shoulder joint function assessed by the Constant–Murley score. However, there was no significant difference in efficacy for patients with four-part fractures or those older than 60 years of age. Since LPF was associated with significantly higher revision and postoperative complications rates, we suggest that HAP should be considered the preferred procedure for patients older than 60 years with four-part proximal humeral fractures.