Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis for Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Retrospective Study Describing Principles and Advantages of the Technique

Table 5

Comparison of clinical results and complications reported with the MIPO technique.

Authors	Patients ()	Mean age (years)	F/U (months)	Implant	Absolute Constant Score	Complications and failures
Acklin et al. (2013)	124	62	18	Philos	75	4 injuries of the ventral branch of axillary nerve (without clinical implications); 8 AVN; 7 screw perforation
Jung et al. (2013)	38	72.4	18	Philos	75.7	1 injury of axillary nerve (axonotmesis); 1 fixation failure; 1 plate impingement; 1 superficial wound infection
Sohn et al. (2014)	62	57	37	Philos	80 (2-part); 74 (3-part); 62 (4-part)	3 plate impingement; 1 screw perforation; 5 varus malunion; 1 greater tuberosity migration
Koljonen et al. (2015)	40	63	17.8	Philos	75	1 fixation failure with screws perforation; 1 varus malunion
Chen et al. (2015)	27	67.3	20.8	Philos	89.4	1 screw perforation
Falez et al. (2015)	76	68.5	12	Philos	71	7 plate impingement; 5 varus malunion; 3 screw perforation; 1 AVN; 2 greater tuberosity resorption; 1 greater tuberosity migration
Gönç et al. (2016)	31	58.4	12	Philos	73.2	2 temporary nerve injury (1 axillary, 1 radial); 1 deep infection; 3 screw perforation; 1 AVN; 2 varus malunion
Park et al. (2014)	21	61	20.8	Periarticular PH-LP	79.4; (6 months); 82.7; (1 year)	1 delayed union; 1 axillary nerve injury; 1 screw perforation
Barco et al. (2012)	23	62	36	NCB-PH	64	2 deep infection; 3 malunion (2 varus, 1 greater tuberosity); 3 screw perforation
Average	49.1	63.5	21.4		75.1
Current study	34	64.8	31.8	Philos	75.2	9 malunion; (4 varus, 1 valgus, 4 greater tuberosity); 1 plate impingement