Comparison of the ALPS and PHILOS plating systems in proximal humeral fracture fixation – a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open reduction and plate osteosynthesis are considered as a successful technique for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHF) despite high complication rates. The objective of our study was to review the clinical outcome and complications of the Anatomic Locking Plate System (ALPS) and compare it to the Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS). Our hypothesis was that ranges of motion (ROM) were superior and complication rates were lower with ALPS. METHODS: Twenty patients treated with ALPS for PHF were retrospectively compared to 27 patients treated with PHILOS. Union, ROM and complications were clinically and radiologically assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 18-24 months post-operatively. RESULTS: Mean age was 52 ± 14 in the ALPS group and 58 ± 13 in the PHILOS group. Last follow-ups were conducted at a mean of 20.6 ± 4.8 months. Mean shoulder abduction was superior with ALPS by 14° (p-value = 0.036), 15° (p-value = 0.049), and 15° (p-value = 0.049) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Mean shoulder external rotation was superior with ALPS by 11° (p-value = 0.032), 15° (p-value = 0.010) and 12° (p-value = 0.016) at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months respectively. At the end of the follow-up, ROM remained better with ALPS, but not significantly. Complication rates over 21 months reached 20% with ALPS and 48% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.045). Implant removal rates reached 10% with ALPS and 37% with PHILOS (p-value = 0.036). Avascular necrosis was the only cause for hardware removal in the ALPS group. CONCLUSION: The ALPS group showed better clinical outcomes with faster recovery in abduction and external rotation, although no difference in ROM remained after 21 months. Additionally, the complications rate was lower at last follow up. In our experience, the ALPS plating system is an effective management option in some PHF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".