Literature DB >> 27118097

Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 4-part displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: Multicenter retrospective study.

N Bonnevialle1, C Tournier2, P Clavert3, X Ohl4, F Sirveaux5, D Saragaglia6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Complex 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus are one of the most difficult fractures to manage. For several years, reverse total arthroplasty (RSA) has been proposed as an alternative to hemiarthroplasty (HA) when internal fixation is insufficient. The goal of this study was to compare the short and intermediate term results of these 2 different types of arthroplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective, multicenter study, 57 HA and 41 RSA were reviewed after a follow-up of at least 2 years. The clinical evaluation was based on the absolute and adjusted Constant scores, Simple shoulder value (SSV) and the quick-DASH scores. The radiological assessment included standard radiological tests.
RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 39 months, the RSA group had a significantly higher adjusted Constant score than the HA group (83% vs 73%, respectively P=0.02). However, there was no significant difference in the absolute Constant score, the quick-DASH or the SSV scores. Active anterior elevation was better in the RSA group, while internal rotation was better in the HA group (130° vs 112°, P=0.01; sacrum vs L3, P=0.03). There was no significant difference in external rotation (28° vs 23°, P=0.31). The rate of complications was higher in the HA group than in the RSA group (24% vs 10%, P=0.01). The radiological rate of union of the greater tuberosity was similar in both groups (70%) and scapular notching was found in 23% of the RSA group.
CONCLUSION: The short and intermediate term clinical outcomes are better with RSA than with HA. The complication rate is higher with HA. Nevertheless, scapular notching occurred in more than 20% of patients with RSA, suggesting that care should be taken when using this prosthesis in young, active patients.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  4-part fracture; Cephalotuberosity fracture; Fracture; Hemiarthroplasty; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27118097     DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.02.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res        ISSN: 1877-0568            Impact factor:   2.256


  16 in total

Review 1.  [Fracture analysis, indication for endoprosthesis and implant selection in proximal humeral fractures].

Authors:  M Kimmeyer; V Rentschler; J Schmalzl; C Gerhardt; L J Lehmann
Journal:  Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-14

Review 2.  Reverse shoulder replacement versus hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients: a systematic review.

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

Review 3.  Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fracture.

Authors:  Brandon J Kelly; Chad M Myeroff
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2020-04

Review 4.  ESTES recommendations on proximal humerus fractures in the elderly.

Authors:  Klaus W Wendt; Martin Jaeger; Jan Verbruggen; Stefaan Nijs; Hans-Jörg Oestern; Richard Kdolsky; Radko Komadina
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 3.693

5.  Changing trends in the management of proximal humerus fractures in New York State.

Authors:  Michael J Sayegh; Ryan A Nixon; Dean C Perfetti; Steven E Rokito; Nicholas A Sgaglione
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-03-25

6.  Functional outcomes of extra-articular scapula fracture fixation with distal humeral Y-type locking plate: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Yuanjun Hu; Huiming Shi; Fei Wang; Guangtie Ren; Ruiping Cheng; Zhizhong Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 7.  The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I.

Authors:  Sarav S Shah; Benjamin T Gaal; Alexander M Roche; Surena Namdari; Brian M Grawe; Macy Lawler; Stewart Dalton; Joseph J King; 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:  2020-09-07

Review 8.  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

9.  Surgical learning curve in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures.

Authors:  Leanne S Blaas; Jian Z Yuan; Charlotte M Lameijer; Peter M van de Ven; Frank W Bloemers; Robert Jan Derksen
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-10-09

10.  Nordic Innovative Trials to Evaluate osteoPorotic Fractures (NITEP) Collaboration: The Nordic DeltaCon Trial protocol-non-operative treatment versus reversed total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age and older with a displaced proximal humerus fracture: a prospective, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Antti P Launonen; Tore Fjalestad; Minna K Laitinen; Tuomas Lähdeoja; Carl Ekholm; Tone Wagle; Ville M Mattila
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.