Literature DB >> 22534957

The clinical and radiographical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with eccentric glenosphere.

Naoko Mizuno1, Patrick J Denard, Patric Raiss, Gilles Walch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scapular notching is a common worrying finding after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Eccentric glenospheres have recently been developed in an attempt to prevent notching. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of RSA with an eccentric glenosphere and compare the incidence and the severity of scapular notching using a concentric glenosphere.
METHODS: A prospective evaluation was performed of 57 consecutive RSA performed over a two-year period. At a minimum of two years postoperatively, 47 RSAs with a mean 30.4 months follow-up were evaluated clinically and radiographically and compared to a historical control group of concentric glenospheres performed by the same surgeon.
RESULTS: The mean Constant score significantly increased (from 32.4 to 71.8) postoperatively (p < 0.0001). Active forward flexion and external rotation also significantly increased (p < 0.0001). Overall, scapular notching was present in 19 shoulders (40.4 %). Grade 1 notching was observed in 13 shoulders (27.7 %), grade 2 in five shoulders (10.6 %), grade 3 in one shoulder (2.1 %), and grade 4 in no shoulders. There was no significant difference in the incidence (p = 0.289) of notching between the eccentric and concentric glenospheres. However, the severity of notching was significantly decreased (p = 0.011) with an eccentric glenosphere. The postoperative Constant score was not significantly different between patients with or without notching (p = 0.651).
CONCLUSION: A Grammont type RSA with eccentric glenosphere can result in good clinical outcomes. An eccentric glenosphere does not prevent notching, but decreases the severity of scapular notching at early follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22534957      PMCID: PMC3535036          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1539-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  22 in total

1.  Radiographic assessment of cemented humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  J Sanchez-Sotelo; S W O'Driscoll; M E Torchia; R H Cofield; C M Rowland
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Pascal Boileau; Duncan Watkinson; Armodios M Hatzidakis; Istvan Hovorka
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Analysis of a retrieved delta III total shoulder prosthesis.

Authors:  R W Nyffeler; C M L Werner; B R Simmen; C Gerber
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-11

Review 4.  Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics.

Authors:  Pascal Boileau; Duncan J Watkinson; Armodios M Hatzidakis; Frederic Balg
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis.

Authors:  Richard W Nyffeler; Clément M L Werner; Christian Gerber
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation.

Authors:  Pascal Boileau; Grégory Moineau; Yannick Roussanne; Kieran O'Shea
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis.

Authors:  C M L Werner; P A Steinmann; M Gilbart; C Gerber
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  The Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients.

Authors:  Mark Frankle; Steven Siegal; Derek Pupello; Arif Saleem; Mark Mighell; Matthew Vasey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.

Authors:  C R Constant; A H Murley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture.

Authors:  P M Grammont; E Baulot
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  24 in total

1.  Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Patrick J Denard; Pascal Boileau; Alain Farron; Pierric Deransart; Alexandre Terrier; Julien Ston; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Clinical and radiological outcome of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS®) reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective comparative non-randomised study.

Authors:  Bakir Kadum; Sebastian Mukka; Erling Englund; Arkan Sayed-Noor; Göran Sjödén
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  [Reversed total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff defect arthropathy].

Authors:  T Patzer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Patrick J Denard; Pascal Boileau; Alain Farron; Pierric Deransart; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  The effect of glenosphere size on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  V J Sabesan; D J Lombardo; R Shahriar; G R Petersen-Fitts; J M Wiater
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2016-02-09

6.  The use of an eccentric glenosphere compared with a concentric glenosphere in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: two-year minimum follow-up results.

Authors:  Carlo Felice De Biase; Giovanni Ziveri; Marco Delcogliano; Francesca de Caro; Stefano Gumina; Mario Borroni; Alessandro Castagna; Roberto Postacchini
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Uncemented versus cemented humeral stem fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph J King; Kevin W Farmer; Aimee M Struk; Thomas W Wright
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Pain and function in eight hundred and fifty nine patients comparing shoulder hemiprostheses, resurfacing prostheses, reversed total and conventional total prostheses.

Authors:  Bjørg-Tilde S Fevang; Stein H L Lygre; Glenn Bertelsen; Arne Skredderstuen; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Complications with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and recent evolutions.

Authors:  Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system.

Authors:  Alessandro Castagna; Marco Delcogliano; Francesca de Caro; Giovanni Ziveri; Mario Borroni; Stefano Gumina; Franco Postacchini; Carlo Felice De Biase
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-05-18       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.