Open reduction and internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures using precontoured locking plates | advanced
Surgical Imaging

Location: The axillary nerve exits the quadrilateral space and courses transversely on the deep surface of the deltoid approximately 5-7 cm distal to the acromion.
Risk: During the deltopectoral approach the nerve is protected if dissection stays anterior; however, when extending the approach or placing a plate that extends distally, the nerve must be identified and protected. Aggressive deltoid retraction or a plate positioned too distal places the nerve at direct risk.
The fix: Identify the nerve at the inferior border of subscapularis or by palpation on the deep deltoid surface before any distal dissection or plate placement. Mark its position and ensure all retractors and the distal plate remain proximal to it.
Location: The cephalic vein lies in the deltopectoral groove, separating the deltoid (lateral) from the pectoralis major (medial).
Risk: The vein is easily injured during skin incision or deep dissection, leading to troublesome bleeding and postoperative swelling. Lateral retraction of the vein with the deltoid is preferred by many surgeons because it preserves medial drainage.
The fix: Identify the vein early after skin incision. Develop the interval on either side of the vein and protect it with a vessel loop or gentle medial/lateral retraction throughout the case.
Location: The inferomedial calcar region of the proximal humerus carries the ascending branch of the anterior circumflex humeral artery and the critical periosteal blood supply to the humeral head.
Risk: Aggressive medial dissection, excessive varus reduction manoeuvres, or failure to restore calcar support leads to varus collapse, screw cut-out, and increased risk of avascular necrosis.
The fix: Preserve all medial soft tissue attachments. Reduce the head to restore medial cortical continuity. Place at least one inferomedial or calcar screw that supports the head fragment and resists varus.
Trap: Accepting posterior or superior displacement of the greater tuberosity because the plate appears to hold the head.
Consequence: Even 5 mm of posterior displacement blocks external rotation and causes impingement. Superior displacement blocks abduction.
The fix: Reduce the tuberosity under direct vision before plate application. Use suture augmentation through the supraspinatus and infraspinatus insertions to hold the reduction while the plate is applied. Confirm position with image intensifier in multiple planes.
Trap: Placing locking screws that penetrate the articular surface, especially in osteoporotic bone where tactile feedback is poor.
Consequence: Rapid chondrolysis, pain, and early arthritis. The central and superior screws are most at risk.
The fix: Use the image intensifier in true AP, axillary, and scapular-Y views after each screw. The "light-bulb" sign on axillary view confirms the head is reduced and screws are extra-articular. Consider using shorter screws in the central row or confirming with arthroscopy if doubt remains.
Trap: Relying on the locking plate alone in poor bone without calcar support or structural augmentation.
Consequence: Progressive varus, screw cut-out through the head, and loss of reduction within weeks.
The fix: Always restore the medial calcar. Use inferomedial support screws. Consider bone graft or cement augmentation in severe osteoporosis. Plan for possible revision to arthroplasty if reduction cannot be maintained.
C.A.L.C.A.RCALCAR — Medial Support and Reduction Priorities
N.E.E.RNEER — Classification and Surgical Thresholds
A.V.O.I.DAVOID — Complications to Anticipate and Prevent
Surgical Indications
Absolute Indications for ORIF
- Displaced 3-part proximal humerus fracture in a physiologically young patient with reconstructible bone stock
- Displaced 4-part fracture with intact medial periosteal sleeve (valgus-impacted pattern) in a patient under 60-65 years
- 2-part surgical neck fracture with greater than 50% displacement or angulation greater than 45 degrees that fails closed reduction
- Associated greater tuberosity displacement greater than 5 mm in a young active patient (risk of rotator cuff dysfunction and impingement)
Relative Indications
- Valgus-impacted 4-part fracture in a patient over 65 with good bone quality and no head-split component
- 3-part fracture with significant medial comminution where locking plate can restore calcar support
- Patient preference for anatomic reconstruction over non-operative care or arthroplasty after informed discussion
Contraindications
Absolute:
- Head-split fracture with greater than 40% articular surface involvement (consider hemiarthroplasty or reverse)
- Severe osteoporosis with comminution that precludes stable fixation (consider reverse shoulder arthroplasty)
- Active infection or open fracture with gross contamination
Relative:
- Age greater than 75 with low functional demand and acceptable alignment after closed reduction
- Significant medical comorbidities that increase perioperative risk
- Pre-existing rotator cuff tear arthropathy or glenohumeral arthritis favouring arthroplasty
Evidence for Non-Operative Treatment
- Minimally displaced fractures (less than 1 cm, less than 45 degrees) achieve good to excellent outcomes with early mobilisation in 80-90% of patients
- Valgus-impacted 4-part fractures have a surprisingly good prognosis with non-operative care when the medial hinge remains intact — approximately 70% achieve satisfactory function without surgery
- Non-operative care requires disciplined physiotherapy and radiographic surveillance; loss of reduction occurs in up to 30% of displaced fractures treated non-operatively
Evidence for ORIF with Locking Plate
- Locking plates provide fixed-angle stability that tolerates early motion even in osteoporotic bone
- Biomechanical studies demonstrate that inferomedial calcar screw placement reduces varus collapse by greater than 50%
- Clinical series report union rates of 85-95% when anatomic reduction and calcar support are achieved
- Complications remain significant: screw cut-out 5-15%, avascular necrosis 5-20%, reoperation 10-25% depending on fracture pattern and bone quality
Clinical Decision Scenarios
Practise clinical reasoning and management decisions out loud
“A 62-year-old active man sustains a displaced 3-part proximal humerus fracture involving the surgical neck and greater tuberosity after a fall from standing height. The greater tuberosity is displaced 12 mm posteriorly and the head is in 30 degrees of varus. How do you decide between non-operative care, ORIF, and arthroplasty?”
“You have just applied a proximal humerus locking plate to a 4-part valgus-impacted fracture in a 58-year-old woman. After placing the inferomedial calcar screw and three proximal locking screws, the image intensifier shows one screw tip appearing intra-articular on the axillary view. What do you do?”
“A 68-year-old woman with a 4-part proximal humerus fracture undergoes ORIF. At 3 months she has persistent pain and radiographs show progressive varus collapse with the head in 30 degrees of varus and the greater tuberosity displaced superiorly. What went wrong and what are the options now?”