| Literature DB >> 26229938 |
Antônio Carlos Tenor Júnior1, José Alano Benevides de Lima1, Iúri Tomaz de Vasconcelos1, Miguel Pereira da Costa1, Rômulo Brasil Filho1, Fabiano Rebouças Ribeiro1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evolution of the functional results from CTA(®) hemiarthroplasty for surgically treating degenerative arthroplathy of the rotator cuff, with a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.Entities:
Keywords: Replacement arthroplasty; Rotator cuff; Shoulder
Year: 2015 PMID: 26229938 PMCID: PMC4519650 DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2015.04.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop ISSN: 2255-4971
Fig. 1CTA prosthesis with its lateral extent, shown on intraoperative photo taken by the author.
Fig. 2CTA prosthesis shown on postoperative radiograph produced by the author.
Patient data.
| Patient | Sex | Time since op (years) | Age | Side | UCLA before op | UCLA one year after op | UCLA final evaluation | Elev/ext rot/med rot before op | Elev/ext rot/med rot after op |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 6.7 | 86 | D | 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 0 = 7 | 10 + 4 + 1 + 3 + 0 = 18 | 10 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 = 18 | 30/10/L2 | 40/10/L2 |
| 2 | M | 6.6 | 69 | D | 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 9 | 8 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 23 | 10 + 10 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 34 | 80/40/L3 | 120/50/L2 |
| 3 | M | 6.5 | 79 | ND | 2 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 0 = 12 | 8 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 25 | 8 + 8 + 4 + 3 + 5 = 28 | 54/0/T11 | 130/10/T8 |
| 4 | F | 6.0 | 89 | D | 2 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 0 = 11 | 8 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 22 | 8 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 25 | 40/10/L1 | 56/10/L1 |
| 5 | F | 5.8 | 67 | ND | 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 0 = 8 | 10 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 26 | 10 + 8 + 2 + 2 + 5 = 27 | 50/20/T12 | 70/40/T11 |
| 6 | F | 5.7 | 88 | D | 2 + 2 + 0 + 3 + 0 = 7 | 8 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 0 = 20 | 8 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 0 = 20 | 68/24/T12 | 80/30/T12 |
| 7 | F | 5.5 | 77 | D | 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 0 = 9 | 8 + 4 + 1 + 3 + 5 = 21 | 10 + 4 + 0 + 2 + 5 = 21 | 12/10/L5 | 20/20/L3 |
| 8 | F | 5.4 | 81 | D | 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 9 | 8 + 8 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 28 | 8 + 6 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 25 | 60/40/L1 | 110/44/L1 |
| 9 | F | 5.2 | 73 | D | 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 0 = 8 | 4 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 0 = 14 | 2 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 0 = 12 | 62/10/L1 | 90/20/L2 |
| 10 | F | 5.1 | 84 | D | 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 0 = 8 | 4 + 6 + 3 + 2 + 0 = 25 | 6 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 0 = 17 | 60/20/T11 | 70/20/T10 |
| 11 | F | 5.0 | 78 | D | 2 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 0 = 11 | 6 + 8 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 28 | 6 + 8 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 28 | 70/20/L2 | 120/36/L2 |
| 12 | F | 4.9 | 72 | ND | 2 + 2 + 0 + 2 + 0 = 6 | 8 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 22 | 8 + 8 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 28 | 56/40/L3 | 70/44/L2 |
| 13 | F | 4.7 | 70 | ND | 2 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 0 = 11 | 8 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 24 | 8 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 24 | 50/16/L1 | 60/30/T12 |
| 14 | F | 4.6 | 74 | D | 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 9 | 4 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 20 | 8 + 8 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 30 | 60/10/T10 | 110/20/T8 |
| 15 | F | 4.6 | 83 | D | 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 0 = 8 | 6 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 18 | 6 + 4 + 3 + 3 +5 =21 | 52/10/Trochanter | 70/26/Sacrum |
| 16 | F | 4.6 | 81 | D | 2 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 0 = 11 | 8 + 8 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 29 | 8 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 27 | 70/10/T10 | 120/22/T8 |
| 17 | F | 5.2 | 87 | D | 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 0 = 9 | 6 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 21 | 6 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 21 | 40/20/L3 | 60/30/L3 |
| 18 | F | 6.0 | 66 | ND | 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 9 | 8 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 24 | 8 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 5 = 25 | 90/30/L5 | 80/30/L5 |
M, male; F, female; D, dominant side; ND, non-dominant side; Elev, elevation; ext rot, external rotation; med rot, medial rotation; op, operation; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles.
Fig. 3Patient distribution according to satisfaction level after the operation.
Fig. 4Comparison of the mean angles of elevation and external rotation from before to after the operation.
P values for the variables of the UCLA score, compared between before the operation, after one year of follow-up and at final evaluation.
| Variables | Before operation | One year afterwards | Final evaluation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SP) | Min–Max | Mean (SP) | Min–Max | Mean (SP) | Min–Max | ||
| Pain | 1.89 (0.32) | 1–2 | 7.22 (1.83) | 4–10 | 7.67 (1.97) | 2–10 | <0.001 |
| Function | 2.67 (0.97) | 2–4 | 5.33 (1.53) | 4–8 | 6.11 (1.88) | 4–10 | <0.001 |
| Active flexion | 1.83 (1.04) | 0–3 | 2.67 (0.97) | 1–5 | 3.06 (1.26) | 0–5 | <0.001 |
| Flexion force | 2.61 (0.50) | 2–3 | 3.28 (0.57) | 2–4 | 3.22 (0.73) | 2–4 | 0003 |
| Satisfaction | 0.00 (0.00) | 0–0 | 3.89 (2.14) | 0–5 | 3.89 (2.14) | 0–5 | <0.001 |
| UCLA score | 9.00 (1.64) | 6–12 | 22.39 (4.23) | 14–29 | 23.94 (5.30) | 12–34 | <0.001 |
Fig. 5Comparison of the UCLA scores before the operation, one year afterwards and at the final evaluation.
P values for the variables of the UCLA score over separate times.
| Pain | Function | Active flexion | Flexion force | Satisfaction | UCLA score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before operation vs. one year after operation | ||||||
| Before operation vs. final evaluation | ||||||
| One years after operation vs. final evaluation |