PURPOSE: Functional results of reversed total prostheses (RTP) have-to a very limited degree-been compared with those of other shoulder prosthesis types. The aim of our study was to compare results of four different types of shoulder prostheses in terms of function, pain, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by 859 patients with shoulder prostheses registered in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or fracture sequela (FS) were included. Symptoms and function were assessed using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS, scale 0-48), and the EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) was used to assess QoL. RESULTS: Best functional results were obtained using conventional total prostheses (TPs) and RTPs -mean OSS improvement 18 and 16 units, respectively, vs 11 with hemiprostheses (HPs). For patients with OA, TPs performed best; for those with RA and FS, RTPs performed best; and those with HPs had the worst results in all diagnostic groups. The greatest improvement in QoL was seen in patients with TPs and RTPs. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional TPs provide the best improvement in pain, function and QoL in OA patients; RTPs are superior in patients with RA and FS.
PURPOSE: Functional results of reversed total prostheses (RTP) have-to a very limited degree-been compared with those of other shoulder prosthesis types. The aim of our study was to compare results of four different types of shoulder prostheses in terms of function, pain, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by 859 patients with shoulder prostheses registered in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or fracture sequela (FS) were included. Symptoms and function were assessed using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS, scale 0-48), and the EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) was used to assess QoL. RESULTS: Best functional results were obtained using conventional total prostheses (TPs) and RTPs -mean OSS improvement 18 and 16 units, respectively, vs 11 with hemiprostheses (HPs). For patients with OA, TPs performed best; for those with RA and FS, RTPs performed best; and those with HPs had the worst results in all diagnostic groups. The greatest improvement in QoL was seen in patients with TPs and RTPs. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional TPs provide the best improvement in pain, function and QoL in OA patients; RTPs are superior in patients with RA and FS.
Authors: Allan A Young; Margaret M Smith; Guillaume Bacle; Claudio Moraga; Gilles Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Dianne Bryant; Robert Litchfield; Michael Sandow; Gary M Gartsman; Gordon Guyatt; Alexandra Kirkley Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Bjørg-Tilde S Fevang; Stein H L Lygre; Glenn Bertelsen; Arne Skredderstuen; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Jeppe V Rasmussen; Bo S Olsen; Anne Kathrine Sorensen; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Stig Brorson Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Michael Thomas; Amit Bidwai; Amar Rangan; Jonathan L Rees; Peter Brownson; Duncan Tennent; Clare Connor; Rohit Kulkarni Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2016-04-25
Authors: Michael C Glanzmann; Christoph Kolling; Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer; Matthias Flury; Laurent Audigé Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: P Dacombe; L Harries; P McCann; M Crowther; I Packham; P Sarangi; M R Whitehouse Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Andrea Beck; Hannah Lee; Mitchell Fourman; Juan Giugale; Jason Zlotnicki; Mark Rodosky; Albert Lin Journal: J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast Date: 2019-02-13