Cyril Lazerges1, Louis Dagneaux2, Benjamin Degeorge3, Nicolas Tardy4, Bertrand Coulet3, Michel Chammas3. 1. Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery Unit, Lapeyronie University Hospital of Montpellier, 191 avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295, Montpellier cedex 5, France. c-lazerges@chu-montpellier.fr. 2. Hip, Knee and Foot Surgery Unit, Lapeyronie University Hospital of Montpellier, 191 avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295, Montpellier cedex 5, France. 3. Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery Unit, Lapeyronie University Hospital of Montpellier, 191 avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295, Montpellier cedex 5, France. 4. Centre ostéo articulaire des Cèdres, 21 Rue Albert Londres, 38432, Échirolles, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Management of proximal humeral tumours remains a surgical challenge. No study to date has assessed the quality of life scores following the composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty for this indication. We, therefore, evaluated function and quality of life following reconstruction with allograft for malignant tumour of the humerus. METHODS: A series of six cases of humeral tumour treated by a single surgeon in a single centre was reviewed after a mean follow-up of 5.9 years. The tumours included two chondrosarcomas, one plasmocytoma and three metastases. Resection involved bone epiphysis, metaphysis and diaphysis in five cases (S3S4S5A) and epiphysis and metaphysis in one case (S3S4A). For reconstruction, an allograft composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty was used in all the cases. Outcomes were assessed with range of motion, the QuickDash score and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey. Radiographs assessed osseointegration and complications. RESULTS: At the final follow-up, the mean shoulder range of motion were respectively 95°, 57° and 11° for forward flexion, abduction and external rotation. Mean QuickDASH score improved from 28 to 41 and VAS-pain scores improved from 5.1 to 2.3. The post-operative MSTS score was 73% and the Constant score was 46.1/100. The SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were also improved, respectively from 44.4 and 39.7 to 45.5 and 56.1. The mean satisfaction score was 8.1/10. CONCLUSIONS: Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a viable alternative for reconstruction after resection of malignant humeral tumour. Although total tumour resection was the most important objective, the functional and quality of life scores were satisfactory.
PURPOSE: Management of proximal humeral tumours remains a surgical challenge. No study to date has assessed the quality of life scores following the composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty for this indication. We, therefore, evaluated function and quality of life following reconstruction with allograft for malignant tumour of the humerus. METHODS: A series of six cases of humeral tumour treated by a single surgeon in a single centre was reviewed after a mean follow-up of 5.9 years. The tumours included two chondrosarcomas, one plasmocytoma and three metastases. Resection involved bone epiphysis, metaphysis and diaphysis in five cases (S3S4S5A) and epiphysis and metaphysis in one case (S3S4A). For reconstruction, an allograft composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty was used in all the cases. Outcomes were assessed with range of motion, the QuickDash score and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey. Radiographs assessed osseointegration and complications. RESULTS: At the final follow-up, the mean shoulder range of motion were respectively 95°, 57° and 11° for forward flexion, abduction and external rotation. Mean QuickDASH score improved from 28 to 41 and VAS-pain scores improved from 5.1 to 2.3. The post-operative MSTS score was 73% and the Constant score was 46.1/100. The SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were also improved, respectively from 44.4 and 39.7 to 45.5 and 56.1. The mean satisfaction score was 8.1/10. CONCLUSIONS: Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a viable alternative for reconstruction after resection of malignant humeral tumour. Although total tumour resection was the most important objective, the functional and quality of life scores were satisfactory.
Authors: B Gandek; J E Ware; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J E Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplege; L Prieto; M Sullivan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Casper Saebye; Hanna M Fugloe; Tine Nymark; Akmal Safwat; Michael M Petersen; Thomas Baad-Hansen; Anders Krarup-Hansen; Johnny Keller Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Sheila C Adams; J David Pitcher; Theodore I Malinin; H Thomas Temple Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-09-27 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Christian Schulze; Markus Weinmann; Christoph Schweigel; Olaf Keßler; Rainer Bader Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 3.623