Literature DB >> 23312820

Isometric strength, range of motion, and impairment before and after total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Brian Puskas1, Kevin Harreld, Rachel Clark, Katheryne Downes, Nazeem A Virani, Mark Frankle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part A provides similar resources for coverage of inpatient hospitalization costs for patients treated with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This is based on an assumption that TSA and RSA are used to treat similar patient populations with comparable disease severity. However, no objective clinical information is available to support this resource allocation. The purpose of this study is to quantify the disease severity and subsequent improvement from primary TSA, primary RSA, and revision arthroplasty (TSA and RSA).
METHODS: From March 2004 through May 2006, 174 shoulders (87 primary TSA, 55 primary RSA, and 32 revision cases) were prospectively studied using Biodex (Biodex Medical Systems, Shirley, NY, USA) isometric strength and standardized video range of motion measurements performed by an independent third-party observer at 1 week before surgery and at an average of 49 months (range, 32-69 months) postoperatively. Patient impairment ratings were calculated using the Florida Impairment Guidelines.
RESULTS: Primary TSA had the lowest average preoperative impairment (21%), and revision arthroplasty had the highest (28%). All patients demonstrated improvement in the parameters tested. At an average 49 months, all 3 groups demonstrated a similar reduction in impairment ratings (TSA: 21% to 10%; RSA: 25% to 15%; revision arthroplasties: 28% to 20%).
CONCLUSION: There are distinct differences in preoperative disease severity among patients undergoing primary TSA, primary RSA, and revision arthroplasty. Greater impairment is evident in patients undergoing a revision arthroplasty. However, all groups may be expected to achieve improvements and maintain these improvements 4 years postoperatively.
Copyright © 2013 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23312820     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  10 in total

1.  Pre-operative factors influence the recovery of range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Philippe Collin; Tetsuya Matsukawa; Patrick J Denard; Solenn Gain; Alexandre Lädermann
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty utilizing a single implant system with a platform stem: A prospective observational study with midterm follow-up.

Authors:  Lindsay Flynn; Matthew R Patrick; Christopher Roche; Joseph D Zuckerman; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Lynn Crosby; Richard Friedman; Thomas W Wright
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2019-04-10

3.  Operative duration-based learning period analysis for reverse and total shoulder arthroplasty: A multicenter study.

Authors:  Edward J Testa; Jeremiah T Lowe; Surena Namdari; Robert J Gillespie; Benjamin W Sears; Peter S Johnston; Andrew Jawa
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2018-11-14

4.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with latissimus dorsi and teres major transfer: biomechanical and electromyographical outcomes.

Authors:  Javier Alonso-Rodriguez Piedra; Brunno Souza Virgolino; Ferran Gamez Baños; Quimey Miranda Elstein; Cristina Ventura Parellada; Jose M Mora Guix
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-03-12

5.  Does Prolonged Use of Walkers in Shoulder Arthroplasty Patients Lead to Accelerated Failure Rates?

Authors:  Paul McLendon; Bradley Schoch; Robert Cofield; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; John Sperling
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-10-11

Review 6.  The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part II.

Authors:  Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Spencer W Sullivan; Benjamin T Gaal; Stewart Dalton; Arjun Sharma; Joseph J King; Brian M Grawe; Surena Namdari; Macy Lawler; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-09-10

7.  Rate of improvement in shoulder strength after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kevin A Hao; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Jonathan O Wright; Ethan W Dean; Aimee M Struk; Joseph J King
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-12-13

Review 8.  Treatment type may influence degree of post-dislocation shoulder osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lukas P E Verweij; Erik C Pruijssen; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Leendert Blankevoort; Inger N Sierevelt; Derek F P van Deurzen; Michel P J van den Bekerom
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Return to Golf Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph S Tramer; Elizabeth A Klag; Noah A Kuhlmann; Gabriel J Sheena; Stephanie J Muh
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-05

10.  How Do Scapulothoracic Kinematics During Shoulder Elevation Differ Between Adults With and Without Rotator Cuff Arthropathy?

Authors:  Vilijam Zdravkovic; Nathalie Alexander; Regina Wegener; Christian Spross; Bernhard Jost
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.755

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.