Proximal humeral fractures are common with a bimodal distribution and sex discrepancy, affecting younger men and older women. The presentation of a proximal humeral fracture can vary greatly because of this bimodal distribution and the associated differences in mechanism of injury. Initial management should involve assessment of life- and limb-threatening injuries as outlined by the British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma, with particular attention paid to axillary nerve function and vascular status. Initial imaging should involve orthogonal X-rays in three planes to determine fracture characteristics and exclude glenohumeral dislocation. Computed tomography imaging improves interobserver agreement and is the gold standard in determining fracture management. Management depends on fracture pattern, patient functionality and bone stock. Most patients with proximal humeral fractures achieve good functional outcomes via conservative methods (sling support and early, graded mobilisation), although there is a lack of evidence in certain populations, including younger patients. Surgery is required for open fractures and more complex fracture patterns where there is a risk of avascular necrosis of the humeral head, unacceptable impairment of functionality or neurovascular compromise. Surgical techniques can be head-sparing or involve replacement of the humeral head. There are several head-sparing techniques, each with different cost–benefit and complication profiles with no one technique superior to any other. However, improvements in plate technology may render open reduction internal fixation a more suitable technique, particularly in younger patients. Head replacement techniques (hemiarthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty) are indicated when the risk of avascular necrosis is too high or in older patients with osteoporotic bone. In these patients, reverse shoulder arthroplasty is preferred as it achieves better functional results than hemiarthroplasty. Complication rates vary depending on the fracture configuration and the course of management undertaken.

Background: A previous study defined the normal first metatarsal pronation angle (MPA) as <16 degrees and normal α angle as <18 degrees. The primary purpose of this study was to assess the side-to-side variation in first metatarsal pronation between feet in normal individuals. Methods: MPA and α angles were measured on standardized coronal weightbearing computed tomography slices. Paired t tests were used to test significance of mean side-to-side differences in a population of 63 normal, asymptomatic individuals. Results: The mean side-to-side difference in first metatarsal pronation was 4.3 degrees (95% CI 3.3, 5.2 degrees) for MPA and 4.9 degrees (95% CI 3.8, 6.0 degrees) for α angle. The normative range for side-to-side difference was calculated as 12 degrees for MPA and 14 degrees for α angle, as defined by 2 SDs from the mean. Conclusion: In a cohort of normal patients, the mean difference in first metatarsal pronation between sides was approximately 4 to 5 degrees based on MPA and α angle. However, considerable variation in differences was observed. These findings may be considered when assessing first metatarsal pronation using population-based values as it may influence thresholds for identifying pathology in an individual.