Citation Information :
Cikes A, Trudeau-Rivest É, Canet F, Hébert-Davies J, Rouleau DM. Repositioning of the humeral tuberosities can be guided by pectoralis major insertion. 2014; 9 (3):127-131.
In complex proximal humerus fractures, positioning of the tuberosities can be a challenge. This study demonstrates the constant angle between the pectoralis major (PM) and the medial lip of the bicipital groove (BG) on the horizontal axial plane. This angle can be used to determine the rotation, as well as the positioning of the tuberosities, when planning a hemiarthroplasty or a reconstruction. Thirty-one shoulder MRIs were reviewed by three independent observers. The measurements were taken by superposing the axial cut of the proximal humerus, at the level of the distal bicipital groove, and the cut at the top of the PM insertion. By aligning the centers of rotation, we could determine the arcs of rotation between the insertion of the PM and the lips of the medial and lateral bicipital groove (MBG and LBG). Both angles were compared in terms of reliability, reproducibility, and precision. The mean PM–MBG angle was 3.7° [standard deviation (SD) 14.7°] and 27.4° (SD 14.4°) for the PM–LBG angle. We obtained good and very good intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) results for inter- (0.675) and intra-observer (0.793) reliabilities on the medial angle, plus excellent results for the lateral angle (inter-observers 0.962 and intra-observer 0.895). This study demonstrates that the repositioning of humeral tuberosities can be guided by pectoralis major insertion. This will help achieve proper positioning of the metaphysis in relation to the diaphysis during surgery for complex proximal humerus fractures.
DeLude JA, Bicknell RT, MacKenzie GA, Ferreira LM, Dunning CE, King GJ et al (2007) An anthropometric study of the bilateral anatomy of the humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:477-483
Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077-1089
Hromadka R, Kubena AA, Pokorny D, Popelka S, Jahoda D, Sosna A (2010) Attachments of muscles as landmarks for implantation of shoulder hemiarthroplasty in fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:130-136. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.023
Kontakis GM, Damilakis J, Christoforakis J, Papadakis A, Katonis P, Prassopoulos P (2001) The bicipital groove as a landmark for orientation of the humeral prosthesis in cases of fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:136-139
Hempfing A, Leunig M, Ballmer FT, Hertel R (2001) Surgical landmarks to determine humeral head retrotorsion for hemiarthroplasty in fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:460-463
Angibaud L, Zuckerman JD, Flurin PH, Roche C, Wright T (2007) Reconstructing proximal humeral fractures using the bicipital groove as a landmark. Clin Orthop Relat Res 458:168-174
Balg F, Boulianne M, Boileau P (2006) Bicipital groove orientation: considerations for the retroversion of a prosthesis in fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:195-198
Hirzinger C, Tauber M, Resch H (2011) Proximal humerus fracture: new aspects in epidemiology, fracture morphology, and diagnostics. Unfallchirurg 114:1051-1058. doi:10.1007/s00113-011-2052-4
Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Mole D (2002) Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:401-412
Krishnan SG, Bennion PW, Reineck JR, Burkhead WZ (2008) Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture: restoration of the Gothic arch. Orthop Clin North Am 39:441-450, vi. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2008.05.004
Murray IR, Amin AK, White TO, Robinson CM (2011) Proximal humeral fractures: current concepts in classification, treatment and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:1-11. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.25702
Takase K, Imakiire A, Burkhead WZ Jr (2002) Radiographic study of the anatomic relationships of the greater tuberosity. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:557-561
Huffman GR, Itamura JM, McGarry MH, Duong L, Gililland J, Tibone JE et al (2008) Neer Award 2006: biomechanical assessment of inferior tuberosity placement during hemiarthroplasty for four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:189-196. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.017
Foruria AM, de Gracia MM, Larson DR, Munuera L, Sanchez- Sotelo J (2011) The pattern of the fracture and displacement of the fragments predict the outcome in proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:378-386. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B3.25083
Tamai K, Ishige N, Kuroda S, Ohno W, Itoh H, Hashiguchi H et al (2009) Four-segment classification of proximal humeral fractures revisited: a multicenter study on 509 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:845-850. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.018
Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Holland B (2001) Radiographic analysis of lumbar lordosis: centroid, Cobb, Trall, and Harrison posterior tangent methods. Spine 26:E235- E242
Rietveld AB, Daanen HA, Rozing PM, Obermann WR (1988) The lever arm in glenohumeral abduction after hemiarthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:561-565
Boileau P, Walch G (1999) Shoulder arthroplasty for fractures: problems and solutions. In: Springer (ed) Shoulder arthroplasty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 297-314
Torrens C, Corrales M, Melendo E, Solano A, Rodriguez-Baeza A, Caceres E (2008) The pectoralis major tendon as a reference for restoring humeral length and retroversion with hemiarthroplasty for fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:947-950. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.041
