Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures: patterns of use among newly trained orthopedic surgeons

Background tudy compared the use of reverse and hemishoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures among orthopedic surgeons taking part II of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery board examination. We hypothesized that the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fractures in the elderly is increasing amongst newly trained orthopedic surgeons. als and methods ried the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database for the cases of proximal humeral fractures treated with arthroplasty submitted between 2005 and 2012. We evaluated the prosthesis used, patient-specific factors, complications, and the difference in use by shoulder fellowship-trained surgeons. s 005 to 2012, 5395 board-eligible orthopedic surgeons submitted cases to the database. Of these, 435 (mean, 54 per year) were proximal humeral fractures treated with arthroplasty. The overall incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture increased from 2% to 4% during 2005 to 2007 to 38% in 2012. Shoulder surgeons treated 5 times more proximal humeral fractures with shoulder arthroplasty and were also more than 20 times more likely to use a reverse implant (P < .0001). The difference in complication rates between reverse and hemishoulder arthroplasty was not significant (P = .49). Patients who received a hemiarthroplasty tended to be younger (mean age, 70.8 vs 75.7 years; P = .0015). sions l, the use of a hemiarthroplasty for fracture is still more common (62% in 2012), although the relative proportion of reverse implants is rising. Among shoulder surgeons, more than 50% of the arthroplasties performed for fractures during the past 3 years (2010-2012) have been reverse arthroplasties.