Literature DB >> 28112785

Effect of Humeral Component Version on Outcomes in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Alexander W Aleem, Brian T Feeley, Luke S Austin, C Benjamin Ma, Ryan J Krupp, Matthew L Ramsey, Charles L Getz.   

Abstract

Although reverse shoulder arthroplasty provides excellent clinical results in appropriately selected patients, loss of external and internal rotation may occur. Component selection, design, and placement affect postoperative results. Recent studies considered the effect of humeral component version on functional results. The current study investigated whether humeral stem retroversion affects the outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a retrospective review of a multisurgeon, industry-sponsored, prospectively gathered database of a single reverse shoulder arthroplasty implant. All patients had at least 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale pain score, Short Form-12 Mental and Physical Component scores, range of motion, and internal rotation function, were compared between patients with humeral retroversion of 10° or less (group A) and those with humeral retroversion of 20° or greater (group B). Radiographic outcomes were compared. The analysis included 64 patients (group A, 29 patients; group B, 35 patients). No clinical or statistically significant difference was found in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Both groups showed statistical and clinical improvement vs preoperative scores, with group A averaging 77.8 and group B averaging 79.2 at final follow-up. No differences were found between groups in range of motion or ability to perform tasks that require shoulder internal rotation. Patients can expect good clinical improvement after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. No difference was found in clinical or radiologic outcomes based on humeral component retroversion. Despite the theoretical increase in external rotation when the humeral component is placed closer to native retroversion, the results did not show this effect. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(3):179-186.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28112785     DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20170117-04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopedics        ISSN: 0147-7447            Impact factor:   1.390


  10 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.  Effect of Implant Size, Version and Rotator Cuff Tendon Preservation on the Outcome of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mustafa Al Yaseen; Yat Wing Smart; Parisah Seyed-Safi; Abdelmonem H Abdelmonem; Daoud Makki; Barnes Morgan; Dilraj Sandher
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-07

3.  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

4.  The functional internal rotation scale: a novel shoulder arthroplasty outcome measure.

Authors:  Alexander W Aleem; Aaron M Chamberlain; Jay D Keener
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2019-11-27

Review 5.  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 6.  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

7.  Three-dimensional kinematics of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison between shoulders with good or poor elevation.

Authors:  Keisuke Matsuki; Shota Hoshika; Yusuke Ueda; Morihito Tokai; Norimasa Takahashi; Hiroyuki Sugaya; Scott A Banks
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-03-31

8.  Factors influencing functional internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bettina Hochreiter; Anita Hasler; Julian Hasler; Philipp Kriechling; Paul Borbas; Christian Gerber
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-04-20

Review 9.  How internal rotation is measured in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Jorge Rojas; Jacob Joseph; Uma Srikumaran; Edward G McFarland
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2019-12-20

Review 10.  Does Humeral Component Version Affect Range of Motion and Clinical Outcomes in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Shivan S Jassim; Lukas Ernstbrunner; Eugene T Ek
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.