Nicolas Bonnevialle1, Xavier Ohl2, Philippe Clavert3, Luc Favard4, Anne Frégeac5, Laurent Obert6, Christophe Chantelot7, David Gallinet8, Pascal Boileau9. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Riquet Hospital, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. nicolasbonnevialle@yahoo.fr. 2. Orthopaedic Department, University Hospital, Reims, France. 3. Shoulder and Elbow Service HUS - CCOM, Illkirch, France. 4. Trousseau University Hospital, Tours, France. 5. AERCOT, iULS, University Hospital Pasteur, Nice, France. 6. University Hospital, Besançon, France. 7. North University, Lille, France. 8. Saint Vincent Private Hospital, Besançon, France. 9. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, iULS, University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the case of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) with tuberosity reconstruction, it is unclear whether the supraspinatus tendon continues to play a role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of RSA for PHFs in a large cohort of elderly patients and compare the results in the case of supraspinatus excision or preservation. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre study, 150 patients (mean age 77 years, 93% female) were reviewed and radiographed with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The same Grammont prosthetic design was used in all cases (inclination angle 155°, non-lateralised glenosphere). Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 117) underwent supraspinatus excision and Group B supraspinatus preservation (n = 33). Complications were recorded, and shoulder function, active mobility and subjective results were assessed. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 59 months, there was no statistical difference in the complication rate (6% vs. 6.8%, p = 1), mean Constant score (61 points vs. 59 points, p = 0.52), simple shoulder value (74% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.9), active anterior elevation (125° vs. 128°, p = 0.45) and internal rotation (4.9 points vs. 4.1 points, p = 0.2). However, mean active external rotation was better in Group A (22° vs. 13°, p = 0.01). The greater tuberosity healing rate in satisfactory position did not differ statistically between the groups (68% vs. 55%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: In the case of RSA with tuberosity reconstruction for acute PHFs, there is no clear evidence that supraspinatus preservation is advantageous.
PURPOSE: In the case of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) with tuberosity reconstruction, it is unclear whether the supraspinatus tendon continues to play a role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of RSA for PHFs in a large cohort of elderly patients and compare the results in the case of supraspinatus excision or preservation. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre study, 150 patients (mean age 77 years, 93% female) were reviewed and radiographed with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The same Grammont prosthetic design was used in all cases (inclination angle 155°, non-lateralised glenosphere). Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 117) underwent supraspinatus excision and Group B supraspinatus preservation (n = 33). Complications were recorded, and shoulder function, active mobility and subjective results were assessed. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 59 months, there was no statistical difference in the complication rate (6% vs. 6.8%, p = 1), mean Constant score (61 points vs. 59 points, p = 0.52), simple shoulder value (74% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.9), active anterior elevation (125° vs. 128°, p = 0.45) and internal rotation (4.9 points vs. 4.1 points, p = 0.2). However, mean active external rotation was better in Group A (22° vs. 13°, p = 0.01). The greater tuberosity healing rate in satisfactory position did not differ statistically between the groups (68% vs. 55%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: In the case of RSA with tuberosity reconstruction for acute PHFs, there is no clear evidence that supraspinatus preservation is advantageous.
Authors: Mark Ross; Ben Hope; Andy Stokes; Susan E Peters; Iain McLeod; Phillip F R Duke Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Brent Mollon; Siddharth A Mahure; Christopher P Roche; Joseph D Zuckerman Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.019
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
Authors: Georg Siebenbürger; Evi Fleischhacker; Johannes Gleich; Tobias Helfen; Wolfgang Böcker; Ben Ockert Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2021-07-07