Literature DB >> 31107323

Primary Monoblock Inset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Resulted in Decreased Pain and Improved Function.

Jonathan C Levy1, Derek Berglund, Rushabh Vakharia, Paul DeVito, Dimitri S Tahal, Dragomir Mijc, Bijan Ameri.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The first-generation, lateral-center-of-rotation reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) modular design has demonstrated durable early-, mid-, and long-term outcomes. The second-generation monoblock implant shares a similar design but eliminates the modular junction and facilitates inset placement within the metaphysis to avoid humeral-sided junctional failures and facilitate metaphyseal press-fit. However, no paper has specifically examined the radiographic findings and improvements in pain and function after the use of this next generation design. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) After second-generation, lateral-center-of-rotation monoblock RSA, what are the improvements in shoulder scores, general health scores, and ROM at a minimum of 2 years of followup? (2) Are the differences in shoulder scores, health scores, and ROM associated with fixation (cemented versus cementless components)? (3) How frequently do complications occur (defined as humeral loosening, dislocation, baseplate failure, scapular notching, acromial fractures, and revision surgery) after inset monoblock RSA?
METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients undergoing primary RSA between 2010 and 2015 with preoperative data and a minimum of 2 years of clinical followup. Of the 329 primary RSA performed during this period, 125 were excluded based on the use of a different generation humeral stem of the same design, three based on need for a nickel-free implant, and 39 due to a lack of preoperative shoulder scores. Of the remaining 162 patients, 137 patients (85%) met the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 74 years (range, 46-90 years). The predominant indications were osteoarthritis with a massive rotator cuff tear (74%) and fracture sequelae (16%). During the study, humeral implants were typically inserted using an uncemented press-fit technique (85%), with only 21 patients requiring a cemented humeral stem. The mean clinical and radiographic followup period was 37 months (range, 24-82 months). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Total, VAS for pain, SF-12, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and measured active motion (forward elevation and external and internal rotation) were recorded at pre- and postoperative intervals. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for baseplate failure, glenoid and humeral loosening, scapular notching, and acromion fractures. Complications were recorded in the longitudinally maintained institutional repository.
RESULTS: At the most recent followup examination, there were improvements in measured motion, general health outcomes, and all PROMs. There were no differences between the cemented and press-fit techniques. Complications observed included 17 of 137 patients (12%) with scapular notching, six postoperative acromion fractures (4%), and two revision procedures (1%). No patients experienced gross humeral loosening or baseplate failure.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary RSA using a second-generation monoblock inset humeral component resulted in improvements in pain and functional outcomes as well as low rates of acromion fractures, humeral radiolucency, and complications. Future studies are needed to provide a more definitive analysis on the use of an uncemented technique for humeral stem fixation and the effect of an inset stem on postoperative acromion fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31107323      PMCID: PMC7000099          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000761

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  28 in total

1.  Long-term humeral complications after Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Francesco Ascione; Peter Domos; Vincenzo Guarrella; Mikaël Chelli; Pascal Boileau; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Clinical and radiographic results of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative study with 2 to 5 years of follow-up.

Authors:  J Michael Wiater; James E Moravek; Matthew D Budge; Denise M Koueiter; David Marcantonio; Brett P Wiater
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Radiographic assessment of ingrowth total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  J W Sperling; R H Cofield; S W O'Driscoll; M E Torchia; C M Rowland
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Radiographic results of fully uncemented trabecular metal reverse shoulder system at 1 and 2 years' follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew Bogle; Matthew Budge; Adam Richman; Richard J Miller; J Michael Wiater; Ilya Voloshin
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Scapula fracture incidence in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using screws above or below metaglene central cage: clinical and biomechanical outcomes.

Authors:  Justin C Kennon; Caroline Lu; Meghan E McGee-Lawrence; Lynn A Crosby
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 6.  Use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency.

Authors:  J C Levy; N Virani; D Pupello; M Frankle
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-02

7.  Fatigue failure of reverse shoulder humeral tray components of a single design.

Authors:  Kathleen A Lewicki; Audrey J Martin; John-Erik Bell; Douglas W Van Citters
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Classification of postoperative acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jonathan C Levy; Christopher Anderson; Anil Samson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Revision for a failed reverse: a 12-year review of a lateralized implant.

Authors:  Brent C Stephens; Peter Simon; Rachel E Clark; Kaitlyn N Christmas; Geoffrey P Stone; Adam J Lorenzetti; Mark A Frankle
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  E-mail reminders improve completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Jacob J Triplet; Enesi Momoh; Jennifer Kurowicki; Leonardo D Villarroel; Tsun Yee Law; Jonathan C Levy
Journal:  JSES Open Access       Date:  2017-04-18
View more
  2 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Primary Monoblock Inset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Resulted in Decreased Pain and Improved Function.

Authors:  Eric T Ricchetti
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.