Literature DB >> 29855243

Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

M Holschen1, M-K Siemes2, K-A Witt2, J Steinbeck2.   

Abstract

Aims: The reasons for failure of a hemirthroplasty (HA) when used to treat a proximal humeral fracture include displaced or necrotic tuberosities, insufficient metaphyseal bone-stock, and rotator cuff tears. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is often the only remaining form of treatment in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome after conversions from a failed HA to rTSA. Material and
Methods: A total of 35 patients, in whom a HA, as treatment for a fracture of the proximal humerus, had failed, underwent conversion to a rTSA. A total of 28 were available for follow-up at a mean of 61 months (37 to 91), having been initially reviewed at a mean of 20 months (12 to 36) postoperatively. Having a convertible design, the humeral stem could be preserved in nine patients. The stem was removed in the other 19 patients and a conventional rTSA was implanted. At final follow-up, patients were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Constant Score, and plain radiographs.
Results: At final follow-up, the mean ASES was 59 (25 to 97) and the mean adjusted Constant Score was 63% (23% to 109%). Both improved significantly (p < 0.001). The mean forward flexion was 104° (50° to 155°) and mean abduction was 98° (60° to 140°). Nine patients (32%) had a complication; two had an infection and instability, respectively; three had a scapular fracture; and one patient each had delayed wound healing and symptomatic loosening. If implants could be converted to a rTSA without removal of the stem, the operating time was shorter (82 minutes versus 102 minutes; p = 0.018).
Conclusion: After failure of a HA in the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture, conversion to a rTSA may achieve pain relief and improved shoulder function. The complication rate is considerable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:761-6.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Convertible implant; Failed shoulder arthroplasty; Hemiarthroplasty; Metaphyseal bone loss; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Revision shoulder arthroplasty; Tuberosity nonunion

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29855243     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B6.BJJ-2017-1280.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  8 in total

Review 1.  Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephen G Thon; Adam J Seidl; Jonathan T Bravman; Eric C McCarty; Felix H Savoie; Rachel M Frank
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2020-02

Review 2.  Primary Versus Salvage Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Patrick A Nelson; Changyow C Kwan; Vehniah K Tjong; Michael A Terry; Ujash Sheth
Journal:  J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast       Date:  2020-09-15

Review 3.  Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Arjun K Reddy; Jake X Checketts; B Joshua Stephens; J Michael Anderson; Craig M Cooper; Tyler Hunt; Keith Fishbeck; Marshall Boose; Byron Detweiler; Brian Chalkin; Brent L Norris
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2021-06-13

4.  Cost-effectiveness of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Does indication affect outcome?

Authors:  Jamie A Nicholson; Rhiannon Jones; Deborah J MacDonald; Iain Brown; Julie McBirnie
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-01-23

5.  Rotator cuff to deltoid and pectoralis tendon to anatomic neck distances: methods for anatomic restoration of humeral height and tuberosity position in proximal humerus fractures for operative fixation and arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jonathan W Cheah; Edward L Baldwin; Jeffrey A O'Donnell; Gregory Pereira; Danica D Vance; Tally E Lassiter; Oke A Anakwenze
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-08-26

Review 6.  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 7.  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

8.  Complications and Intraoperative Fractures in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Andrea Dolci; Barbara Melis; Marco Verona; Antonio Capone; Giuseppe Marongiu
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2021-12-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.