Literature DB >> 28735843

Does arm lengthening affect the functional outcome in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Birgit S Werner1, Francesco Ascione2, Giulia Bugelli3, Gilles Walch2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The concept of onlay design reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been introduced to overcome complications observed with the traditional Grammont-type prosthesis. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of arm lengthening on the short-term clinical outcome in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty and investigate the effect of humeral tray offset positioning on arm lengthening and range of motion.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 56 patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty with the Aequalis Ascend Flex prosthesis (Tornier, Bloomington, MN, USA) at a minimum 2 years' follow-up. Arm lengthening was determined using bilateral scaled radiographs of the entire humerus. The Constant score and active range of motion were documented preoperatively and postoperatively. The relationship between arm lengthening, humeral tray offset position, and functional outcome was analyzed.
RESULTS: The Constant score improved from 25.5 ± 9.5 points to 71.5 ± 13.8 points at a mean follow-up of 30.1 ± 5.2 months. Mean postoperative anterior elevation was 145.2° ± 21.1°, and external rotation was 30.7° ± 20.3°. Arm lengthening exceeding 2.5 cm was related to a decrease in anterior elevation. We found a relationship between arm lengthening averaging 2.2 ± 1.7 cm and increased Constant score values. Humeral tray positioning demonstrated no influence on the functional outcome. There was a trend toward increased arm lengthening in lateral offset positioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty yields good short-term clinical results. In our population, arm lengthening averaging 1 to 2.5 cm was found to be the best compromise on postoperative range of motion.
Copyright © 2017 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; arm lengthening; complications; humeral tray component; onlay design; range of motion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28735843     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.05.021

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


  10 in total

1.  Treatment of cephalotuberosity fractures in elderly patients treated by reverse shoulder prosthesis: a study of functional results in relation to deltoid tension.

Authors:  Pierre-Sylvain Marcheix; Isaline Bazin; Guillaume Vergnenegre; Christian Mabit; Jean-Louis Charissoux
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Similar optimal distalization and lateralization angles can be achieved with different reverse shoulder arthroplasty implant designs.

Authors:  Michael Marsalli; Juan De Dios Errázuriz; Marco A Cartaya; Joaquín De La Paz; Diego N Fritis; Pedro I Alsúa; Nicolas I Morán; José T Rojas
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-10-15

3.  Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: the Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous inSufficiency (PHAROS) Classification System.

Authors:  Peter N Chalmers; Anthony A Romeo; Gregory P Nicholson; Pascal Boileau; Jay D Keener; James M Gregory; Dane H Salazar; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a concise review.

Authors:  Su Cheol Kim; Il Su Kim; Min Chang Jang; Jae Chul Yoo
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2021-03-02

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

6.  Radiologic Comparison of Humeral Position according to the Implant Designs Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Analysis between Medial Glenoid/Medial Humerus, Lateral Glenoid/Medial Humerus, and Medial Glenoid/Lateral Humerus Designs.

Authors:  Nam Su Cho; Ju Hyun Nam; Se Jung Hong; Tae Wook Kim; Myeong Gu Lee; Jung Tae Ahn; Yong Girl Rhee
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2018-12-01

7.  Infraspinatus and deltoid length and patient height: implications for lateralization and distalization in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peter N Chalmers; Spencer R Lindsay; Weston Smith; Jun Kawakami; Ryan Hill; Robert Z Tashjian; Jay D Keener
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2020-07-23       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.  Problems, complications, and reinterventions in 4893 onlay humeral lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties: a systematic review (part I-complications).

Authors:  Francesco Ascione; Alfredo Schiavone Panni; Adriano Braile; Katia Corona; Giuseppe Toro; Nicola Capuano; Alfonso M Romano
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2021-07-08

Review 10.  Factors Influencing Acromial and Scapular Spine Strain after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies.

Authors:  Alexander Paszicsnyek; Olivia Jo; Harshi Sandeepa Rupasinghe; David C Ackland; Thomas Treseder; Christopher Pullen; Greg Hoy; Eugene T Ek; Lukas Ernstbrunner
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.