CT-Based Morphometric Analysis of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Quantitative Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4108/eetpht.11.10651Keywords:
proximal humerus fracture, computed tomography, morphometry, Hertel criteria, deltoid tuberosity index, Hounsfield unit, bone qualityAbstract
Introduction:
Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) represent approximately 4–5% of all fractures, with increasing incidence among elderly women due to osteoporosis. Conventional radiography often underestimates displacement and fails to characterize complex patterns. Computed tomography (CT) with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) offers superior visualization and measurement accuracy. This study aimed to establish a quantitative CT-based morphometric framework for assessing fracture configuration, bone quality, and ischemic risk predictors in Vietnamese patients with PHFs.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was performed on 80 non-contrast CT scans of PHFs obtained between January 2024 and April 2025. Multiplanar reconstruction was aligned to the humeral shaft axis. Quantitative parameters included greater and lesser tuberosity displacement (d_GT, d_LT), neck–shaft angle (NSA), calcar length (L_calcar), medial hinge gap (d_hinge), and head-split gap (d_split). Bone quality was evaluated using the Deltoid Tuberosity Index (DTI) and mean Hounsfield Unit (HŪ). Hertel risk criteria were applied to identify predictors of humeral head ischemia. Statistical analyses used t-test, chi-square, and logistic regression, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
Results:
The mean patient age was 53.7 ± 16.2 years (range 18–84), with a female predominance of 67.5% and left-sided involvement in 52.5%. Neer Type II and two-part fractures were most frequent (62.5% and 61.3%, respectively). Surgical-neck fractures (61.3%) had a mean NSA of 122° ± 21.8°, calcar length 6.58 ± 2.47 mm, and medial hinge gap 1.66 ± 2.17 mm; 81.6% fulfilled ≥2 Hertel ischemic criteria. Mean DTI was 1.75 ± 0.32, with 20% osteoporotic (DTI <1.44), and mean HŪ was 125.1 ± 6.3, significantly higher in males (p = 0.028). Fracture complexity correlated with direct trauma (p < 0.01) but not with age, sex, or bone quality.
Discussion and Conclusion:
CT-based morphometry provides reproducible and objective assessment of PHFs, surpassing plain radiographs in evaluating displacement, calcar integrity, and ischemic predictors. Quantitative thresholds—L_calcar < 8 mm, d_hinge > 2 mm, DTI < 1.44, and HU < 120—effectively identify risk factors for head ischemia and osteoporosis. Integration of algorithmic logic into computer-aided diagnosis may enhance decision-making for fixation or arthroplasty. This study establishes a data-driven framework linking quantitative CT imaging to orthopedic treatment planning.
Downloads
References
[1] Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691–697.
[2] Launonen AP, Lepola V, Saranko A, Flinkkilä T, Laitinen M, Mattila VM. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:209.
[3] Court-Brown CM, Duckworth AD, Clement ND, McQueen MM. Fractures in older adults. A view of the future? Injury. 2018;49(12):2161-2166.
[4] Sukthankar AV, Leonello DT, Hertel RW, Ding GS, Sandow MJ. A comprehensive classification of proximal humeral fractures: HGLS system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):e1-6.
[5] Brunner A, Honigmann P, Treumann T, Babst R. The impact of stereo-visualisation of three-dimensional CT datasets on the inter- and intraobserver reliability of the AO/OTA and Neer classifications in the assessment of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(6):766-771.
[6] Berkes MB, Dines JS, Little MTM, Garner MR, Shifflett GD, Lazaro LE, et al. The impact of three-dimensional CT imaging on intraobserver and interobserver reliability of proximal humeral fracture classifications and treatment recommendations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(15):1281–1286.
[7] Bahrs C, Laux CJ, Josten C, Wissing F. Assessment of proximal humeral fractures: Does CT (2D/3D) provide additional benefit compared to conventional radiographs? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:233.
[8] Iglesias-Rodríguez S, Domínguez-Prado DM, García-Reza A, Fernández-Fernández D, Pérez-Alfonso E, García-Piñeiro J, et al. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):402.
[9] Polykandriotis E, Zschiegner A, Horch RE, Schürmann M. Bone allograft and locking plate for severe proximal humeral fractures: early and late outcomes. Med Sci Monit. 2021;27:e928982.
[10] Alzobi OZ, Salman LA, Derbas J, Abudalou A, Hantouly AT, Ahmed G. Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures in Qatar. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023;33(7):3119-3124.
[11] Lind T, Krøner K, Jensen J. The epidemiology of fractures of the proximal humerus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989;108(5):285–287.
[12] Stoddart M, Pearce O, Smith J, McCann P, Sheridan B, Al-Hourani K. Proximal humerus fractures: reliability of Neer versus AO classification on plain radiographs and computed tomography. Cureus. 2020;12(6):e8520.
[13] Janssen SJ, Jayakumar P, Ter Meulen DP, van Deurzen DFP, Ring D. Quantitative 3-dimensional computerized tomography modeling of isolated greater tuberosity fractures with and without shoulder dislocation. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2019;7(1):24-32.
[14] Bono CM, Renard R, Levine RG, Levy AS. Effect of displacement of fractures of the greater tuberosity on the mechanics of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(7):1056-62.
[15] Boksh K, Srinivasan A, Perianayagam G, Singh H, Modi A. Morphological characteristics and management of greater tuberosity fractures associated with anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation: a single centre 10-year retrospective review. J Orthop. 2022;34:1-7.
[16] Spek RWA, Schoolmeesters BJA, den Haan C, Jaarsma RL, Doornberg JN, van den Bekerom MPJ. What are the patient-reported outcomes, functional limitations, and complications after lesser tuberosity fractures? A systematic review of 172 patients. JSES Int. 2021;5(4):754-764.
[17] Ripoll T, Chelli M, Johnston T, Chaoui J, Gauci MO, Vasseur H, et al. Three-dimensional measurement of proximal humerus fractures displacement: a computerized analysis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(12):4085.
[18] Fazzari F, Canton G, Giraldi G, Falcioni N, Clocchiatti S, Rasio N, et al. Avascular necrosis of humeral head after proximal humerus fracture: comparison between classification systems in predicting necrosis risk. Acta Biomed. 2023;94(S2):e2023089.
[19] Campochiaro G, Rebuzzi M, Baudi P, Catani F. Complex proximal humerus fractures: Hertel's criteria reliability to predict head necrosis. Musculoskelet Surg. 2015;99 Suppl 1:S9-15.
[20] Cai P, Yang Y, Xu Z, Wang Z, Zhou X, Yang T. Anatomic locking plates for complex proximal humeral fractures: anatomic neck fractures versus surgical neck fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(3):476-482.
[21] Kim DM, Park D, Kim H, Lee ES, Shin MJ, Jeon IH, et al. Risk factors for severe proximal humerus fracture and correlation between deltoid tuberosity index and bone mineral density. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:2151459320938571.
[22] Liu G, Li L, Yang C, Wei L, Li T, Zhu L, et al. Hounsfield units predicts the occurrence but not the patterns of proximal humerus fracture in the elderly patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):342.
[23] Chung SW, Han SS, Lee JW, Oh KS, Kim NR, Yoon JP, et al. Automated detection and classification of the proximal humerus fracture by using deep learning algorithm. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(4):468-473.
[24] Magnéli M, Ling P, Gislén J, Fagrell J, Demir Y, Arverud ED, et al. Deep learning classification of shoulder fractures on plain radiographs of the humerus, scapula and clavicle. PLoS One. 2023;18(8):e0289808.
[25] Sperling JW Jr, Yang L, Girod MM, Saniei S, Kaji ES, Grove AF, et al. A deep learning algorithm to detect proximal humerus fractures on radiographs. JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2025;5(4):635-640.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Thy Gia Anh Le, Thi Cao, Thuy Hoang Vinh Le, Khang Kha Bao Cao
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which permits copying, redistributing, remixing, transformation, and building upon the material in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
