G Porcellini1, A Combi2, G Merolla1, B Bordini3, S Stea3, G Zanoli4, P Paladini5. 1. Unit of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Cervesi Hospital, Via L.V. Beethoven 1, 47841, Cattolica, RN, Italy. 2. Orthopedics and Traumatology Unit, ASO Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy. 3. Medical Technology Lab, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. 4. GLOBE, Evidence Based Orthopedics Working Group, Rome, Italy. 5. Unit of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Cervesi Hospital, Via L.V. Beethoven 1, 47841, Cattolica, RN, Italy. palpaolo@tin.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant registries have proved valuable in assessing the outcomes of arthroplasty procedures. Moreover, by identifying lesser quality implants they have indirectly improved the quality of care. The registry of prosthetic shoulder implants was established in 2008. METHODS: It records information on all types of primary and revision arthroplasty procedures involving the glenohumeral joint, including reverse and total arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, resurfacing, removal, and any other surgical procedures that are required to manage these patients. The collected data include patient demographics, weight, height, operated side, cuff status, and diagnosis/reason for revision surgery, information on previous surgical procedures involving either shoulder, comorbidities, antibiotic and thromboembolic prophylaxis, blood transfusions, surgical approach, cuff repair procedures performed during arthroplasty, bone grafts, drains, and perioperative complications, and data about the prosthetic components implanted, including the fixation method. RESULTS: Procedures were performed on 3754 shoulders. They included 2226 RSA, 320 TSA, 730 HA, 233 resurfacing procedures, 245 revisions, and 77 "other" procedures. The survival curves of the implants are greater than 90%, and no differences were found among prosthesis from different manufacturers. The diagnosis that prompted to arthroplasty was: osteoarthritis in 60.9% of cases and fractures, bone necrosis, sequelae of fracture and rotator cuff tear arthropathy for the rest of implants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study describes the epidemiological data and mid-term implant outcomes of the shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed in our region, from 2008 to 2014, and compares them with published data from national registries of similar size. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
BACKGROUND: Implant registries have proved valuable in assessing the outcomes of arthroplasty procedures. Moreover, by identifying lesser quality implants they have indirectly improved the quality of care. The registry of prosthetic shoulder implants was established in 2008. METHODS: It records information on all types of primary and revision arthroplasty procedures involving the glenohumeral joint, including reverse and total arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, resurfacing, removal, and any other surgical procedures that are required to manage these patients. The collected data include patient demographics, weight, height, operated side, cuff status, and diagnosis/reason for revision surgery, information on previous surgical procedures involving either shoulder, comorbidities, antibiotic and thromboembolic prophylaxis, blood transfusions, surgical approach, cuff repair procedures performed during arthroplasty, bone grafts, drains, and perioperative complications, and data about the prosthetic components implanted, including the fixation method. RESULTS: Procedures were performed on 3754 shoulders. They included 2226 RSA, 320 TSA, 730 HA, 233 resurfacing procedures, 245 revisions, and 77 "other" procedures. The survival curves of the implants are greater than 90%, and no differences were found among prosthesis from different manufacturers. The diagnosis that prompted to arthroplasty was: osteoarthritis in 60.9% of cases and fractures, bone necrosis, sequelae of fracture and rotator cuff tear arthropathy for the rest of implants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study describes the epidemiological data and mid-term implant outcomes of the shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed in our region, from 2008 to 2014, and compares them with published data from national registries of similar size. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Jeppe V Rasmussen; Stig Brorson; Geir Hallan; Håvard Dale; Ville Äärimaa; Jari Mokka; Steen L Jensen; Anne M Fenstad; Björn Salomonsson Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Art Sedrakyan; Stephen Graves; Barbara Bordini; Miquel Pons; Leif Havelin; Susan Mehle; Elizabeth Paxton; Thomas Barber; Guy Cafri Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Thomas Comfort; Valborg Baste; Miquel Angel Froufe; Robert Namba; Barbara Bordini; Otto Robertsson; Guy Cafri; Elizabeth Paxton; Art Sedrakyan; Stephen Graves Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ove Furnes; Elizabeth Paxton; Guy Cafri; Stephen Graves; Barbara Bordini; Thomas Comfort; Moises Coll Rivas; Samprit Banerjee; Art Sedrakyan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mark T Dillon; Christopher F Ake; Mary F Burke; Anshuman Singh; Edward H Yian; Elizabeth W Paxton; Ronald A Navarro Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 3.717