Literature DB >> 30773441

Can a functional difference be detected in reverse arthroplasty with 135° versus 155° prosthesis for the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy: a prospective randomized study.

Reuben Gobezie1, Yousef Shishani2, Evan Lederman3, Patrick J Denard4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare humeral inclinations of 135° and 155° in patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Our hypothesis was that forward flexion would be higher in the 155° group but be associated with a higher rate of scapular notching.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 100 primary RSAs performed with a humeral inclination of either 135° or 155°. The prostheses were otherwise identical and a neutral glenosphere was used in all cases. Functional outcome, forward flexion, external rotation, and scapular notching were assessed at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: There was no difference in range of motion or functional outcome scores between the 2 groups. In the 155° group, forward flexion improved from 76° to 135° (P < .001) and external rotation remained unchanged (29° vs. 30°; P = .835). In the 135° group, postoperative forward flexion improved from 78° to 132° (P < .001) and external rotation was unchanged (28° vs. 29°; P = .814). Scapular notching was observed in 58% of cases with a 155° inclination compared with 21% with a 135° inclination (P = .009).
CONCLUSION: With a neutral glenosphere there was no difference in postoperative forward flexion or external rotation after an RSA with a humeral inclination of 135° compared with 155°. Scapular notching was reduced with the use of 135° design compared with a 155° design but persists at a rate of 21% at 2-year follow-up in the absence of a lateralized glenosphere.
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  135°; 155°; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; forward flexion; humeral inclination; randomized controlled trial; scapular notching

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30773441     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.064

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Implant Design Considerations.

Authors:  Ujash Sheth; Matthew Saltzman
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-12

2.  Treatment of proximal humerus fractures using reverse shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical outcome and tuberosity healing?

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Maria Körting; Patrick Khourdaji; Benjamin Bockmann; Tobias L Schulte; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 3.  Lateralized versus nonlateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yehia H Bedeir; Brian M Grawe; Magdy M Eldakhakhny; Ahmed H Waly
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-09

4.  Patient Posture Affects Simulated ROM in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Modeling Study Using Preoperative Planning Software.

Authors:  Philipp Moroder; Manuel Urvoy; Patric Raiss; Jean-David Werthel; Doruk Akgün; Jean Chaoui; Paul Siegert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Bony increased-offset reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) associated with an eccentric glenosphere and an onlay 135° humeral component: clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Philippe Collotte; Marc-Olivier Gauci; Thais Dutra Vieira; Gilles Walch
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-01-28

6.  Treating cuff tear arthropathy by reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical and the radiological outcome?

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Alexandros Kiriazis; Benjamin Bockmann; Tobias L Schulte; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-04-20

7.  Shoulder replacement surgery for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy.

Authors:  Richard S Craig; Henry Goodier; Jasvinder A Singh; Sally Hopewell; Jonathan L Rees
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-04-21

Review 8.  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

9.  A comparison of patient-specific instrumentation to navigation for conducting humeral head osteotomies during shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph Cavanagh; Jason Lockhart; G Daniel G Langohr; James A Johnson; George S Athwal
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-07-14

10.  Does lateralizing the glenosphere center of rotation by 4 mm decrease scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° humeral component?

Authors:  Samuel M Harmsen; Joey Robaina; David Campbell; Patrick J Denard; Reuben Gobezie; Evan S Lederman
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.