Search

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: Funding for this study was received from Sophies Minde Ortopedi AS, The South-East Health Authority Norway, and The Research Council of Norway. The funding sources did not play a role in the investigation. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I188 )., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a locking plate for patients 65-85 years old with a displaced proximal humerus fracture., Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial, taking a health care perspective. A total of 124 patients with displaced proximal humerus fractures were randomized to treatment with RTSA (n = 64) or ORIF (n = 60) during a 2-year period. The outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years derived from the generic questionnaire 15D in an intention to treat population. The results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in the analysis., Results: At 2 years, 104 patients were eligible for analyses. The mean quality-adjusted life year was 1.24 (95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.28) in the RTSA group and 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.30) in the ORIF group. The mean cost in the RTSA group (€36.755 [€17,654-€55,855]) was higher than that in the ORIF group (€31.953 [€16,226-€47,279]). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ORIF was the dominant treatment. When using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1000 replications, the plots were centered around origo. This indicates that there is no significant difference in cost or effect., Conclusion: In the cost-utility analysis of treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures, there were no differences between RTSA and ORIF., (Copyright © 2022 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Almost one-third of patients with proximal humeral fractures are treated surgically, and the number is increasing. When surgical treatment is chosen, there is sparse evidence on the optimum method. The DelPhi (Delta prosthesis-PHILOS plate) trial is a clinical trial comparing 2 surgical treatments. Our hypothesis was that reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) yields better clinical results compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using an angular stable plate., Methods: The DelPhi trial is a randomized controlled trial comparing reverse TSA with ORIF for displaced proximal humeral fractures (OTA/AO types 11-B2 and 11-C2) in elderly patients (65 to 85 years of age). The primary outcome measure was the Constant score at a 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Shoulder Score and radiographic evaluation. Results were reported as the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). The intention-to-treat principle was applied for crossover patients., Results: There were 124 patients included in the study. At 2 years, the mean Constant score was 68.0 points (95% CI, 63.7 to 72.4 points) for the reverse TSA group compared with 54.6 points (95% CI, 48.5 to 60.7 points) for the ORIF group, resulting in a significant mean difference of 13.4 points (95% CI, 6.2 to 20.6 points; p < 0.001) in favor of reverse TSA. When stratified for fracture classification, the mean score was 69.3 points (95% CI, 63.9 to 74.7 points) for the reverse TSA group and 50.6 points (95% CI, 41.9 to 59.2 points) for the ORIF group for type-C2 fractures, which yielded a significant mean difference of 18.7 points (95% CI, 9.3 to 28.2 points; p < 0.001). In the type-B2 fracture group, the mean score was 66.2 points (95% CI, 58.6 to 73.8 points) for the reverse TSA group and 58.5 points (95% CI, 49.6 to 67.4 points) for the ORIF group, resulting in a nonsignificant mean difference of 7.6 points (95% CI, -3.8 to 19.1 points; p = 0.19)., Conclusions: At a 2-year follow-up, the data suggested an advantage of reverse TSA over ORIF in the treatment of displaced OTA/AO type-B2 and C2 proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.