Juan Wang1,2,3, Yanbin Zhu4,5, Fei Zhang6,7, Wei Chen8,9, Ye Tian10,11, Yingze Zhang12,13. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 517700470@qq.com. 2. Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 517700470@qq.com. 3. Department of Arthroplasty Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 517700470@qq.com. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. zhuyanbin111@126.com. 5. Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. zhuyanbin111@126.com. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 136384256@qq.com. 7. Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 136384256@qq.com. 8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. drchenwei1981@gmail.com. 9. Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. drchenwei1981@gmail.com. 10. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 645200123@qq.com. 11. Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. 645200123@qq.com. 12. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. dryzzhang@126.com. 13. Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050051, People's Republic of China. dryzzhang@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic meta-analysis and review aims to critically compare the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fracture. METHODS: Relevant original studies were searched in the electronic databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane central database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (all through December 2014). Studies that investigated and compared the effectiveness or complications in both groups and provided sufficient data of interest were included in this meta-analysis. Participants in both groups were significantly the same in the demography and injury mechanism. RESULTS: Eight studies that fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis, which included 421 participants in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and 160 in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Patients were followed-up for at least one year in each study. Compared with HA, RSA was associated with a lower rate of total complications, higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, more healed tuberosities and improved active forward elevation. Both treatments were comparable in term of revision surgeries, mortality, subjective satisfaction and active external rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence from this meta-analysis suggested that RSA was a more advantaged method for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures. Clinical decision should be preferred to RSA on the condition that patients' medical conditions are indicated.
PURPOSE: This systematic meta-analysis and review aims to critically compare the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fracture. METHODS: Relevant original studies were searched in the electronic databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane central database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (all through December 2014). Studies that investigated and compared the effectiveness or complications in both groups and provided sufficient data of interest were included in this meta-analysis. Participants in both groups were significantly the same in the demography and injury mechanism. RESULTS: Eight studies that fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis, which included 421 participants in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and 160 in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Patients were followed-up for at least one year in each study. Compared with HA, RSA was associated with a lower rate of total complications, higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, more healed tuberosities and improved active forward elevation. Both treatments were comparable in term of revision surgeries, mortality, subjective satisfaction and active external rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence from this meta-analysis suggested that RSA was a more advantaged method for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures. Clinical decision should be preferred to RSA on the condition that patients' medical conditions are indicated.
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; William Slikker; Nathan A Mall; Anil K Gupta; Zain Rahman; Daniel Enriquez; Gregory P Nicholson Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Grant E Garrigues; Peter S Johnston; Matthew D Pepe; Bradford S Tucker; Matthew L Ramsey; Luke S Austin Journal: Orthopedics Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 1.390
Authors: Yaiza Lopiz; Javier García-Coiradas; Laura Serrano-Mateo; Carlos García-Fernández; Fernando Marco Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: M Vall; L Natera; C Witney-Lagen; M A Imam; A A Narvani; G Sforza; O Levy; J Relwani; P Consigliere Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2022-08-16
Authors: Hassaan Abdel Khalik; Brittany Humphries; Michael Zoratti; Daniel Axelrod; Colin Kruse; Bill Ristevski; Krishan Rajaratnam; Michael Gardner; Jean-Éric Tarride; Herman Johal Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.755