Proximal Humerus ORIF with Locking Plate

TraumaAdvancedCore Procedure

Proximal Humerus ORIF with Locking Plate

Surgical technique guide for open reduction and internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures using precontoured locking plates — deltopectoral approach, tuberosity reduction, calcar support, axillary nerve protection, and post-operative rehabilitation

High-yield overview

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

Surgical Imaging

Proximal humerus fracture fixed with a locking plate
Proximal humerus fracture fixed with a locking plate (PHILOS-type) and divergent locking screws supporting the humeral head.Credit: Thomas Zimmermann (THWZ) via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
Critical Danger Structures and Exam Traps
Axillary Nerve — Deltoid Split Risk

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.

Cephalic Vein — Deltopectoral Interval

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.

Medial Calcar and Periosteal Sleeve

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.

Greater Tuberosity Malreduction

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.

Intra-articular Screw Penetration

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.

Varus Collapse in Osteoporotic Bone

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.

Mnemonic

C.A.L.C.A.RCALCAR — Medial Support and Reduction Priorities

Mnemonic

N.E.E.RNEER — Classification and Surgical Thresholds

Mnemonic

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

Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

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?

Practical approach
This patient has a displaced 3-part fracture meeting Neer criteria (greater tuberosity displacement greater than 1 cm) with varus angulation of the head. In a physiologically young, active 62-year-old with good bone stock, I would recommend ORIF with a locking plate. **Decision factors**: Age and activity level favour reconstruction over arthroplasty. The fracture pattern is reconstructible — the head is not split, the greater tuberosity is a single large fragment, and the medial calcar appears intact on CT. Non-operative care carries a high risk of malunion with posterior tuberosity displacement causing impingement and weakness. **Pre-operative planning**: I would obtain a CT scan with 3D reconstruction to confirm the tuberosity fragment size, the degree of comminution at the calcar, and to template the plate position. I would discuss the risks of avascular necrosis (approximately 10-15% in 3-part fractures), screw cut-out, and the need for compliance with postoperative rehabilitation. **Operative plan**: Beach-chair position, deltopectoral approach, identification and protection of the axillary nerve, anatomic reduction of the greater tuberosity using suture traction, restoration of the head-shaft angle with calcar support, application of a precontoured locking plate with inferomedial screw, and rotator cuff suture augmentation through the plate. **Post-operative**: Early passive motion within the first week, sling for 4 weeks, progressive active motion and strengthening from week 4. I would warn him that full recovery takes 6-12 months and that 10-15% of patients require reoperation for complications.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

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?

Practical approach
I would immediately exchange the offending screw for a shorter one before proceeding with the remainder of the case. Intra-articular penetration is a preventable complication that leads to rapid chondrolysis if left uncorrected. **Immediate action**: With the image intensifier still in position, I would remove the suspect screw, measure the length again using the depth gauge, and replace it with a screw 4-6 mm shorter. I would then re-image in AP, axillary, and scapular-Y views to confirm all screws are extra-articular. **Why this matters**: Even 2 mm of intra-articular penetration causes articular cartilage damage within weeks. The central and superior screws are most at risk because the humeral head is spherical and the screw trajectory can easily exit the articular surface. **Prevention for future cases**: I always obtain a true axillary view after each proximal screw. I look for the 'light-bulb' sign of the head outline without screw protrusion. If there is any doubt I will shorten the screw rather than risk penetration. In osteoporotic bone I err on the side of shorter screws. **Documentation**: I would document the intraoperative recognition and correction in the operative note and ensure the postoperative radiographs confirm extra-articular placement.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

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?

Practical approach
This is a classic failure of calcar support leading to varus collapse. The most likely technical errors were inadequate restoration of the medial calcar, absence of an inferomedial support screw, or poor bone quality that allowed the head to settle into varus despite the locking plate. **Analysis of failure**: The locking plate alone does not prevent varus collapse if the medial column is not supported. The inferomedial screw is the critical implant that resists the deforming force of the rotator cuff pulling the head into varus. Without it, or without a stable calcar reduction, the construct fails. **Management options at 3 months**: 1. If the collapse is early and the patient has reasonable bone stock, revision ORIF with bone graft, a longer plate, and additional calcar support may be considered. 2. In most 68-year-old patients with established collapse and pain, conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty is the most reliable option. It bypasses the need for tuberosity healing and provides predictable pain relief and function. 3. If the patient has low functional demands and the pain is tolerable, continued non-operative management with activity modification is reasonable, but most patients in this situation opt for revision surgery. **Prevention in future cases**: Always restore the medial calcar. Place at least one inferomedial locking screw. In osteoporotic bone, consider cement augmentation or structural graft. Do not accept a reduction that leaves the head in varus.
Exam day cheat sheet
Proximal Humerus ORIF with Locking Plate — Exam Day Summary

References

Evidence

Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial

Level I
Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, et alJAMA
Source: JAMA 2015;313(10):1037-47
Evidence

Proximal humeral fractures: a prospective multicenter study of 452 cases treated with locking plates

Level II
Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, et alJ Shoulder Elbow Surg
Evidence

The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures

Level III
Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, et alJ Orthop Trauma
Evidence

Avascular necrosis after open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures

Level II
Bastian JD, Hertel RJ Shoulder Elbow Surg
Evidence

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients

Level III
Cuff DJ, Pupello DRJ Shoulder Elbow Surg
Editorially reviewed — transparent references and correction processPublished by OrthoVellum Medical Education TeamEditorial boardMethodologyReview policy
Educational disclosure

Educational content is reviewed for source visibility, editorial coherence, and correction readiness.

No individual clinician credential is claimed unless a named person is shown.

Verify before clinical use; this is not medical advice or a substitute for local guidance.