Literature DB >> 27807112

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty without Bone-Grafting for Severe Glenoid Bone Loss in Patients with Osteoarthritis and Intact Rotator Cuff.

Edward G McFarland1, Gazi Huri1, Yoon Suk Hyun1, Steve A Petersen1, Uma Srikumaran1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treating shoulders with osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff, and substantial glenoid bone loss is challenging. One option is reaming the glenoid flat and inserting a reverse prosthesis. This study reports the subjective, objective, and radiographic results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in this population.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 42 consecutive patients (23 women; mean age, 71 years [range, 53 to 89 years]) with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, intact rotator cuffs, and Walch type-A2 (n = 19), B2 (n = 5), or C glenoids (n = 18) who had undergone a total of 42 RTSAs with glenoid reaming without bone-grafting between 2008 and 2013 (mean follow-up, 36 months [range, 24 to 66 months]). All patients were evaluated before and after surgery subjectively (using a visual analog scale for pain and 5 shoulder-specific outcome instruments), objectively (with goniometric examination of shoulder range of motion), and radiographically (to assess baseplate loosening and degree of scapular notching).
RESULTS: One baseplate (2%) failed, requiring revision surgery. There were no other signs of baseplate loosening in any patient at the last follow-up. Preoperatively to postoperatively, pain improved significantly (p < 0.001), as did all patient-reported outcome measures and the following range-of-motion parameters (p ≤ 0.001): active abduction, active flexion, and active external rotation with the arm elevated 90°. Eight (19%) of the patients had notching.
CONCLUSIONS: RTSA without bone-grafting and with medialization of the baseplate in patients with osteoarthritis and severe glenoid bone loss resulted in significant improvement in pain and function with reliable short-term implant survivorship and may be a good alternative to anatomical TSA. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages. This was an "off-label" indication for this device. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27807112     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  16 in total

1.  Benefits of a metallic lateralized baseplate prolonged by a long metallic post in reverse shoulder arthroplasty to address glenoid bone loss.

Authors:  Philippe Valenti; Johanna Sekri; Jean Kany; Imen Nidtahar; Jean-David Werthel
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Glenoid bony morphology of osteoarthritis prior to shoulder arthroplasty: what the surgeon wants to know and why.

Authors:  Lawrence Lo; Scott Koenig; Natalie L Leong; Brian B Shiu; S Ashfaq Hasan; Mohit N Gilotra; Kenneth C Wang
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  [Partial or full component exchange in hip revision? : The relevance of off-label use and mix & match].

Authors:  K P Günther; K Tucker; P Kjaersgaard-Andersen; J Lützner; J P Kretzer; R Nelissen; T Lange; L Zagra
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-06-27

4.  Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasties Performed for Proximal Humeral Fractures Versus Elective Etiologies.

Authors:  Liau Zi Qiang Glen; Chin Kai Cheong; Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Nistala; Phua Kean Ann Sean; Li Tian Pei; Manohara Ruben
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 1.033

5.  Glenoid morphology in light of anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a dissection- and 3D-CT-based study in male and female body donors.

Authors:  Sandra Mathews; Marco Burkhard; Nabil Serrano; Karl Link; Martin Häusler; Nakita Frater; Ingeborg Franke; Helena Bischofberger; Florian M Buck; Dominic Gascho; Michael Thali; Steffen Serowy; Magdalena Müller-Gerbl; Gareth Harper; Ford Qureshi; Thomas Böni; Hans-Rudolf Bloch; Oliver Ullrich; Frank-Jakobus Rühli; Elisabeth Eppler
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Filippo Familiari; Jorge Rojas; Mahmut Nedim Doral; Gazi Huri; Edward G McFarland
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-02-28

7.  Isokinetic Evaluation of Shoulder Strength and Endurance after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Ali Erşen; Fevzi Birişik; Serkan Bayram; Türker Şahinkaya; Mehmet Demirel; Ata Can Atalar; Mehmet Demirhan
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 1.511

Review 8.  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

9.  Effect of complications on outcomes after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Erin Granger; Kortnie Broschinsky; Jun Kawakami; Peter N Chalmers
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-06-10

10.  Do glenoid retroversion and humeral subluxation affect outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty?

Authors:  C Benjamin Ma; Weiyuan Xiao; Madeleine Salesky; Edward Cheung; Alan L Zhang; Brian T Feeley; Drew A Lansdown
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-05-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.