Analyzing outcomes after proximal humerus fractures in patients <65 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: There has been an increasing amount of interest and research examining best practices for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHF). Recent, high-level randomized control trials and many retrospective cohort studies have failed to demonstrate clear benefit of surgical management for these injuries especially in the elderly (generally defined as ≥65 years old). There is a paucity of research available on outcomes after surgical and nonsurgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in adults younger than 65 years, and comparative data are almost nonexistent. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the available data to determine if the literature supports surgical management over conservative treatment for PHFs in adults younger than 65 years. Materials and methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of proximal humerus fractures was performed using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. Studies were included if they reported useable data such as outcome measures for adult patients younger than 65 years. Quality of nonrandomized studies was assessed utilizing the MINORs criteria. Extracted data were analyzed using statistical software with P-value set at 0.05. Results: Six studies were included in the study for data extraction and statistical analysis. When comparing Constant Scores (CS) and Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) of operatively and nonoperatively treated adult patients aged less than 65 years, no statistical differences were found. Furthermore, no statistical differences in CS or OSS were found comparing elderly patients (defined as ≥65 years) and adult patients (defined as 18 to <65 years). Analysis of DASH outcome data did show statistical differences of the three cohorts (nonoperative <65, operative