| Literature DB >> 31439480 |
Ali Erşen1, Fevzi Birişik1, Serkan Bayram2, Türker Şahinkaya3, Mehmet Demirel1, Ata Can Atalar4, Mehmet Demirhan5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to compare the isometric strength and endurance of shoulder abduction and internal and external rotation between operated shoulders and nonoperated, contralateral shoulders of patients who underwent reverse shoulder replacement due to unilateral rotator cuff tear arthropathy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With a diagnosis of cuff tear arthropathy, 41 consecutive patients (mean age of 70.8 years; age range, 57 to 84; 36 females, 5 males) who underwent unilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty were reviewed based on functional and radiological data. In all cases, cuff tear arthropathy was unilateral and contralateral shoulder was asymptomatic, with normal shoulder function. The average length of follow-up was 34 months (range of 12-67). To assess patients' functional level, the Constant score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (the Quick-DASH) outcome measure were used preoperatively and at the final examination. The primary outcomes of the present study were measurement of isokinetic strength and endurance of shoulder abduction and internal and external rotation using an isokinetic evaluator.Entities:
Keywords: Abduction; Endurance; Isokinetic test; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Rotational strength
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31439480 PMCID: PMC6939012 DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2019.08.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc ISSN: 1017-995X Impact factor: 1.511
Flowchart of the study participants.
| Inclusion Criterias |
Having a diagnosis of unilateral cuff tear arthropathy. |
A minimum of 12-months follow-up. |
Undergoing unilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty. |
Having an asymptomatic shoulder with a normal range of motion. |
Being willing to complete the questionnaires during physician office visits. |
| Exclusion Criteria |
Patient with revision reverse arthroplasty |
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures |
Patients without adequate range of motion for isokinetic test |
Patients with inflammatory diseases |
Fig. 1A–B: Patients performed internal-external rotation cybex who underwent the reverse shoulder prosthesis 2 years ago.
Fig. 2Patients performed abduction cybex who underwent the reverse shoulder prosthesis 2 years ago.
Fig. 3A–B: Compared measurement of the acromion-greater tuberosity (AGT) distance both preoperatively and postoperatively.
Comparison of the groups strength and endurance cybex scores.
| Strength | Endurance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse Prosthessis Group | Unaffected Shoulder Group | P value | Reverse Prosthessis Group | Unaffected Shoulder Group | P value | |
| Abduction (nm) | 23.8 | 27.6 | >0.05 | 105 | 115 | >0.05 |
| External Rotation (nm) | 11 | 17 | 0.026 | 65 | 153 | 0.038 |
| Internal Rotation (nm) | 10 | 17 | 0.012 | 100 | 248 | <0.01 |
Comparison pre-postoperative range of motion and functional scores.
| Post-operative Comparison | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | Postoperative | P Value | |||
| Mean | Min-Max | Mean | Min-Max | ||
| Abduction | 84.5 | 30–170 | 108.8 | 90–170 | <0.01 |
| Forward Flexion | 77.5 | 50–130 | 111.6 | 80–170 | <0.01 |
| Constant Score | 38 | 27–81 | 65 | 53–84 | 0.03 |
| Q-DASH Score | 64 | 52–79 | 26 | 9–53 | 0.018 |
| Acromiohumeral Distance | 6.2 | 0–8 | 30.4 | 18–40 | <0.01 |