Background: In the setting of bilateral shoulder arthroplasty (BSA), differences in functional outcomes and motion between anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of treatment for various combinations of TSA procedures. Methods: A review of prospectively collected data from an institutional shoulder surgery repository was performed for patients who underwent any combination of bilateral TSA or RSA surgery. Based on the combination of shoulder arthroplasty, patients were divided into the following subgroups: bilateral TSA (TSA/TSA), bilateral RSA (RSA/RSA), or unilateral TSA with contralateral RSA (TSA/RSA). A total of 73 patients (146 shoulders), with a minimum of 2-year follow-up, who underwent any combination of bilateral TSA or RSA from 2007 to 2014 were included. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and measured motion were evaluated between the 3 groups. Results: There were 47 TSA/TSA, 17 RSA/RSA, and 9 TSA/RSA patients with a mean age of 72 years and mean follow-up of 51 months. Preoperatively, TSA/TSA had significantly higher Simple Shoulder Test scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) function, active elevation, and active external rotation compared with RSA/RSA. Postoperative scores were significantly superior in TSA/TSA compared with other combinations of shoulder arthroplasty except VAS pain and function. Change in pre- to postoperative (effectiveness of treatment) internal rotation was superior in the TSA/TSA group compared with RSA/RSA and TSA/RSA; however, no other differences were observed. Conclusions: Bilateral TSA patients have higher preoperative function and motion. Although some postoperative outcomes differ among combinations of BSA, the overall effectiveness of treatment for patients undergoing BSA is similar between various combinations of arthroplasty.
Background: In the setting of bilateral shoulder arthroplasty (BSA), differences in functional outcomes and motion between anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of treatment for various combinations of TSA procedures. Methods: A review of prospectively collected data from an institutional shoulder surgery repository was performed for patients who underwent any combination of bilateral TSA or RSA surgery. Based on the combination of shoulder arthroplasty, patients were divided into the following subgroups: bilateral TSA (TSA/TSA), bilateral RSA (RSA/RSA), or unilateral TSA with contralateral RSA (TSA/RSA). A total of 73 patients (146 shoulders), with a minimum of 2-year follow-up, who underwent any combination of bilateral TSA or RSA from 2007 to 2014 were included. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and measured motion were evaluated between the 3 groups. Results: There were 47 TSA/TSA, 17 RSA/RSA, and 9 TSA/RSApatients with a mean age of 72 years and mean follow-up of 51 months. Preoperatively, TSA/TSA had significantly higher Simple Shoulder Test scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) function, active elevation, and active external rotation compared with RSA/RSA. Postoperative scores were significantly superior in TSA/TSA compared with other combinations of shoulder arthroplasty except VAS pain and function. Change in pre- to postoperative (effectiveness of treatment) internal rotation was superior in the TSA/TSA group compared with RSA/RSA and TSA/RSA; however, no other differences were observed. Conclusions: Bilateral TSA patients have higher preoperative function and motion. Although some postoperative outcomes differ among combinations of BSA, the overall effectiveness of treatment for patients undergoing BSA is similar between various combinations of arthroplasty.
Authors: Steven M Klein; Page Dunning; Philip Mulieri; Derek Pupello; Katheryne Downes; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mark Frankle; Steven Siegal; Derek Pupello; Arif Saleem; Mark Mighell; Matthew Vasey Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Chris R Mellano; Noam Kupfer; Robert Thorsness; Peter N Chalmers; Terrence F Feldheim; Patrick O'Donnell; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma; Anthony A Romeo; Gregory P Nicholson Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Matthew Walker; Matthew P Willis; Jordan P Brooks; Derek Pupello; Philip J Mulieri; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Edward V Fehringer; Branko Kopjar; Richard S Boorman; R Sean Churchill; Kevin L Smith; Frederick A Matsen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.284