Clinical Study

Medial Calcar Support and Radiographic Outcomes of Plate Fixation for Proximal Humeral Fractures

Table 1

Characteristics among 2-group patients with proximal humerus fracture.

VariablesGroup 1Group 2 value
( = 36)( = 53)

Age, mean years (SDa)66.8 (10.0)66.3 (11.6)0.815
Female gender28 (77.8)43 (81.1)0.699
Right side lesion 16 (44.4)24 (45.3)0.935
AOb/OTAc type
 A22 (61.1)15 (28.3)
 B13 (36.1)27 (50.9)
 C1 (2.8)11 (20.8)
Neer type
 2 parts 22 (61.1)16 (30.2)
 3 parts13 (36.1)25 (47.2)
 4 parts 1 (2.8)12 (22.6)
Shoulder dislocation4 (11.1)4 (7.5)0.710
Timely operationd10 (27.8)21 (39.6)0.250
Locked plating 15 (41.7)22 (41.5)0.988
Follow-up, mean months (SD) 26.4 (12.8)27.4 (13.4)0.729
Comorbidity
 Diabetes mellitus 12 (33.3)16 (30.1)0.754
 Arterial hypertension17 (47.2)29 (54.7)0.487
 Coronary heart disease4 (11.1)4 (7.5)0.710
 Stroke 3 (8.3)3 (5.7)0.683
 Chronic kidney disease9 (25.0)15 (28.3)0.730
 Chronic liver diseas3 (8.3)14 (26.4)0.033

Note: data are number (%) of lesions, unless otherwise indicated.
Pearson chi-square test, unless otherwise stated; independent -test.
SD: standard deviation; bAO: arbeitsgemeinschaft für osteosynthesefragen; cOTA: orthopaedic trauma association; dtimely operation: operation performed <8 hours after fracture.
Statistical significance ( < 0.05).