Literature DB >> 23748462

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

Carlo Felice De Biase1, Giovanni Ziveri, Marco Delcogliano, Francesca de Caro, Stefano Gumina, Mario Borroni, Alessandro Castagna, Roberto Postacchini.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The current models of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) expose the procedure to the risk of scapular notching, possibly leading to loosening of the glenoid. We compared the clinical and radiographic results obtained with a concentric or eccentric glenosphere to assess whether the eccentric design might give better clinical results and avoid or decrease the risk of scapular notching
METHODS: Of our patients, 31 underwent RSA using a concentric glenosphere (group A), while 29 had an eccentric glenosphere (group B). Postoperatively, patients were followed-up at one to 12 months and annually thereafter, with the mean being 33 months in group A and 27.5 in group B. In both groups the minimum follow up (F-U) was 24 months. Preoperatively and at each F-U starting from six months, patients were assessed using the Constant score. On radiographs, prosthesis scapular neck angle (PSNA), distance between scapular neck and glenosphere (DBSNG) and peg-glenoid rim distance (PGRD) were calculated. The severity of notching was classified in four grades.
RESULTS: In group A the mean Constant score increased by 30 points compared to the preoperative score and the active ROM increased considerably. At latest F-U, the mean PSNA, DBSNG and PGRD were, respectively, 87°, 3.4 mm and 19.8 mm. Glenoid notching was present in 42% of cases. In group A, the mean Constant score increased by 34 points and the mean ROM was better than in group A. The average PSNA, PGRD and DBSNG were, respectively, 92°, 21.2 mm and 4.3 mm. Radiographs showed no inferior scapular notching.
CONCLUSIONS: The eccentric glenosphere yielded better clinical results than the concentric glenosphere and was associated with no scapular notching.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23748462      PMCID: PMC3779548          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-1947-9

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


  23 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship analysis of eighty replacements followed for five to ten years.

Authors:  Jacques Guery; Luc Favard; François Sirveaux; Didier Oudet; Daniel Mole; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the Delta III reverse total shoulder replacement.

Authors:  Ryan W Simovitch; Matthias A Zumstein; Eveline Lohri; Naeder Helmy; Christian Gerber
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Evaluation of abduction range of motion and avoidance of inferior scapular impingement in a reverse shoulder model.

Authors:  Sergio Gutiérrez; Jonathan C Levy; Mark A Frankle; Derek Cuff; Tony S Keller; Derek R Pupello; William E Lee
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Optimizing glenosphere position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, Part One: The twelve-mm rule.

Authors:  James D Kelly; C Scott Humphrey; Tom R Norris
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions.

Authors:  M Jasty; C Bragdon; D Burke; D O'Connor; J Lowenstein; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  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

10.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology.

Authors:  Bryan Wall; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Daniel P O'Connor; T Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  13 in total

1.  Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a mini 25-mm glenoid baseplate.

Authors:  George S Athwal; Kenneth J Faber
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Arm lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Tom Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Reverse polarity shoulder replacement: Current concepts and review of literature.

Authors:  Ling Hong Lee; Aravind Desai
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-07-18

4.  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

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

Review 6.  Reverse shoulder prosthesis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Roberto Postacchini; Stefano Carbone; Gianfranco Canero; Maurizio Ripani; Franco Postacchini
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Radiographic parameters associated with excellent versus poor range of motion outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Georges Haidamous; Alexandre Lädermann; Robert U Hartzler; Bradford O Parsons; Evan S Lederman; John M Tokish; Patrick J Denard
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-09

8.  Treatment of proximal humerus fractures using reverse shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical outcome and tuberosity healing?

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Maria Körting; Patrick Khourdaji; Benjamin Bockmann; Tobias L Schulte; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Effect of Implant Size, Version and Rotator Cuff Tendon Preservation on the Outcome of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mustafa Al Yaseen; Yat Wing Smart; Parisah Seyed-Safi; Abdelmonem H Abdelmonem; Daoud Makki; Barnes Morgan; Dilraj Sandher
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-07

10.  Treating cuff tear arthropathy by reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical and the radiological outcome?

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Alexandros Kiriazis; Benjamin Bockmann; Tobias L Schulte; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.