Literature DB >> 25441556

Does bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty decrease scapular notching?

George S Athwal1, Joy C MacDermid2, K Murali Reddy2, Jonathan P Marsh2, Kenneth J Faber2, Darren Drosdowech2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this cohort study was to compare scapular notching rates, range of motion, and functional outcomes between patients who underwent a standard Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and patients who underwent bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. We hypothesized that the BIO-RSA cohort would have lower notching rates and improved rotational range of motion; however, validated outcome scores between cohorts would be no different.
METHODS: A comparative cohort study was designed after a sample size calculation. A total of 40 patients were studied with 20 in each cohort (RSA vs BIO-RSA). All patients underwent an interview and physical examination. Outcomes included range of motion; shoulder strength; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; Simple Shoulder Test score; Constant score; and Global Rating of Change scale score. Radiographs were obtained for all patients and examined for scapular notching.
RESULTS: When we compared demographic characteristics between the standard RSA and BIO-RSA cohorts, including age, sex, and follow-up duration, there were no significant differences between groups (P > .05). In addition, there were no significant differences between cohorts when we compared forward elevation (P = .418); external rotation (P = .999); internal rotation (P = .071); strength (P > .376); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (P = .229); American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = .579); Simple Shoulder Test score (P = .522); Constant score (P = .917); or Global Rating of Change scale score (P = .167). The frequency of scapular notching, however, was significantly higher (P = .022) in the RSA cohort than in the BIO-RSA cohort: 75% versus 40%.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the scapular notching rate was significantly higher in the standard RSA group, no other outcome measures were statistically different, including range of motion, strength, and validated outcome scores.
Copyright © 2015 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BIO-RSA; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; complications; cuff tear arthropathy; scapular notching

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25441556     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.015

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


  24 in total

1.  Comparison of bony increased offset-reverse shoulder arthroplasty and standard reverse shoulder arthroplasty outcomes.

Authors:  Muhammad Umar; Michael Hughes; Lisa-Marie Barrington-Ford; Kaira Pearson; Mohammad Waseem
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-11-06

2.  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

3.  Customized tantalum-augmented reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid bone defect and excessive medialization: description of the technique.

Authors:  Nicola Ivaldo; Tony Mangano; Giovanni Caione; Mario Rossoni; Angelo Ligas
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2016-11-30

4.  Quantifying the competing relationship between adduction range of motion and baseplate micromotion with lateralization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Josie Elwell; Joseph Choi; Ryan Willing
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Metallic humeral and glenoid lateralized implants in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy and primary osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk; Laurent Audigé; Viktoria Harzbecker; Philipp Moroder; Markus Scheibel
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-12-14

6.  Can surgeons optimize range of motion and reduce scapulohumeral impingements in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A computational study.

Authors:  Marc-Olivier Gauci; Jean Chaoui; Julien Berhouet; Adrien Jacquot; Gilles Walch; Pascal Boileau
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2021-02-18

7.  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

Review 8.  Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of the available evidence.

Authors:  Richard Dimock; Mohamed Fathi Elabd; Mohamed Imam; Mark Middleton; Arnaud Godenèche; A Ali Narvani
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-06-02

9.  Three-dimensional kinematics of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison between shoulders with good or poor elevation.

Authors:  Keisuke Matsuki; Shota Hoshika; Yusuke Ueda; Morihito Tokai; Norimasa Takahashi; Hiroyuki Sugaya; Scott A Banks
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-03-31

10.  A novel method for localization of the maximum glenoid bone defect during reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Graeme T Harding; Aaron J Bois; Martin J Bouliane
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-04-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.