Literature DB >> 27742246

Influence of glenosphere size on the development of scapular notching: a prospective randomized study.

Carlos Torrens1, Pau Guirro2, Joan Miquel3, Fernando Santana2.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: The objective of the study was to evaluate the development of scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty by comparing larger glenospheres (42 mm) with smaller glenospheres (38 mm).
METHODS: This was a prospective randomized study of 81 patients who had undergone reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 2-year follow-up. Patients were randomized to receive either a 42-mm glenosphere (38 patients) or a 38-mm glenosphere (43 patients). Scapular notching development was assessed with an anteroposterior radiograph at the end of the follow-up. Functional outcome was assessed with the Constant score before surgery and at the end of follow-up. An independent blinded observer carried out radiologic and clinical assessments.
RESULTS: Scapular notching was present in 48.8% of the patients receiving a 38-mm glenosphere and in 12.1% of the patients receiving one of 42 mm, with significant differences between both (P < .001). No significant differences were noted between the 2 glenosphere size groups in terms of the total Constant score. Patients with a 42-mm glenosphere had a mean glenoid-glenosphere overhang of 6.1 mm, whereas patients with a 38-mm glenosphere had one of 4.2 mm, with significant differences between them (P < .001). No significant differences in the total Constant score were found between the patients whether they had scapular notching or not.
CONCLUSION: Bigger glenospheres (42 mm) significantly reduce development of scapular notching compared with smaller glenospheres (38 mm). Glenosphere size has no significant influence on functional outcomes measured with the Constant score.
Copyright © 2016 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; complications; cuff-deficient shoulder; glenosphere; glenosphere overhang; outcomes; scapular notching

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27742246     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.07.006

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Implant Design Considerations.

Authors:  Ujash Sheth; Matthew Saltzman
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-12

2.  Patient Posture Affects Simulated ROM in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Modeling Study Using Preoperative Planning Software.

Authors:  Philipp Moroder; Manuel Urvoy; Patric Raiss; Jean-David Werthel; Doruk Akgün; Jean Chaoui; Paul Siegert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  Decreased complication profile and improved clinical outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty after 2010: A systematic review.

Authors:  Raphael J Crum; Darren L de Sa; Favian L Su; Bryson P Lesniak; Albert Lin
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2019-06-19

Review 4.  Safety and Effectiveness of Shoulder Arthroplasties in Spain: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jorge Arias-de la Torre; Xavier Garcia; Kayla Smith; Arantxa Romero-Tamarit; Elisa Puigdomenech; Laura Muñoz-Ortiz; Jonathan P Evans; Vicente Martín; Antonio J Molina; Carles Torrens; Miquel Pons-Cabrafiga; Francesc Pallisó; Jose María Valderas; Mireia Espallargues
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Effect of scapular notching on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Young Hoon Jang; Jeong Hyun Lee; Sae Hoon Kim
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 6.  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

7.  Outcomes after a Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Bradley Hillyard; Victoria Childress; Jun Kawakami; Angela P Presson; Chong Zhang; Peter N Chalmers
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Adjusting Implant Size and Position Can Improve Internal Rotation After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Three-dimensional Computational Model.

Authors:  Eric G Huish; George S Athwal; Lionel Neyton; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

9.  Impact of Age and Subscapularis Tendon Reparability on Return to Recreational Sports Activities and 2-Year Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jonathan A Godin; Jonas Pogorzelski; Marilee P Horan; Lucca Lacheta; Zaamin B Hussain; Burak Altintas; Salvatore Frangiamore; Sandeep Mannava; Erik M Fritz; Peter J Millett
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-10-14

10.  The Schulthess local Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (SAR): cohort profile.

Authors:  Alex Marzel; Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer; Christoph Kolling; Fabrizio Moro; Matthias Flury; Michael C Glanzmann; Christian Jung; Barbara Wirth; Beatrice Weber; Beat Simmen; Markus Scheibel; Laurent Audigé
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.