Literature DB >> 32315453

Shoulder replacement surgery for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy.

Richard S Craig1, Henry Goodier1, Jasvinder A Singh2, Sally Hopewell1, Jonathan L Rees1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shoulder replacement surgery is an established treatment for patients with end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy who have not improved with non-operative treatment. Different types of shoulder replacement are commonly used, but their relative benefits and risks compared versus one another and versus other treatments are uncertain. This expanded scope review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of shoulder replacement surgery in adults with osteoarthritis (OA) of the shoulder, including rotator cuff tear arthropathy (RCTA). SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and Web of Science up to January 2019. We also searched clinical trial registers, conference proceedings, and reference lists from previous systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised studies comparing any type of shoulder replacement surgery versus any other surgical or non-surgical treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We also included randomised studies comparing any type of shoulder replacement or technique versus another. Study participants were adults with osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. We assessed the following major outcomes: pain, function, participant-rated global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and risk of revision or re-operation or treatment failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected trial data on benefits and harms. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 20 studies involving 1083 participants (1105 shoulders). We found five studies comparing one type of shoulder replacement surgery to another type of shoulder replacement surgery, including three studies comparing conventional stemmed total shoulder replacement (TSR) surgery to stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty. The remaining 15 studies compared one type of shoulder replacement to the same type of replacement performed with a technical modification or a different prosthetic component. We found no studies comparing shoulder replacement surgery to any other type of surgical treatment or to any type of non-surgical treatment. We found no studies comparing reverse total shoulder replacement surgery to any other type of treatment or to any type of replacement. Trial size varied from 16 to 161 participants. Participant mean age ranged from 63 to 81 years. 47% of participants were male. Sixteen trials reported participants with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and intact rotator cuff tendons. Four trials reported patients with osteoarthritis and a rotator cuff tear or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for at least two domains, and only one study was free from high risk of bias (included in the main comparison). The most common sources of bias were lack of blinding of participants and assessors, attrition, and major baseline imbalance. Three studies allowed a comparison of conventional stemmed TSR surgery versus stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty in people with osteoarthritis. At two years, low-quality evidence from two trials (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggested there may be a small but clinically uncertain improvement in pain and function. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 is no pain), mean pain was 2.78 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 1.49 points lower (0.1 lower to 2.88 lower) after conventional stemmed TSR. On a scale of 0 to 100 (100 = normal function), the mean function score was 72.8 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 10.57 points higher (2.11 higher to 19.02 higher) after conventional stemmed TSR. There may be no difference in quality of life based on low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. On a scale of 0 to 100 (100 = normal), mean mental quality of life was rated as 57.4 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 1.0 point higher (5.1 lower to 7.1 higher) after conventional stemmed TSR. We are uncertain whether there is any difference in the rate of adverse events or the rate of revision, re-operation, or treatment failure based on very low-quality evidence (downgraded three levels for risk of bias and serious imprecision). The rate of any adverse event following stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty was 286 per 1000, and following conventional stemmed TSR 143 per 1000, for an absolute difference of 14% fewer events (25% fewer to 21% more). Adverse events included fractures, dislocations, infections, and rotator cuff failure. The rate of revision, re-operation, or treatment failure was 103 per 1000, and following conventional stemmed TSR 77 per 1000, for an absolute difference of 2.6% fewer events (8% fewer to 15% more). Participant-rated global assessment of treatment success was not reported. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is an established procedure, no high-quality randomised trials have been conducted to determine whether shoulder replacement might be more effective than other treatments for osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy of the shoulder. We remain uncertain about which type or technique of shoulder replacement surgery is most effective in different situations. When humeral hemiarthroplasty was compared to TSR surgery for osteoarthritis, low-quality evidence led to uncertainty about whether there is a clinically important benefit for patient-reported pain or function and suggested there may be little or no difference in quality of life. Evidence is insufficient to show whether TSR is associated with greater or less risk of harm than humeral hemiarthroplasty. Available randomised studies did not provide sufficient data to reliably inform conclusions about adverse events and harm. Although reverse TSR is now the most commonly performed type of shoulder replacement, we found no studies comparing reverse TSR to any other type of treatment.
Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32315453      PMCID: PMC7173708          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012879.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  82 in total

1.  Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis.

Authors:  G M Gartsman; T S Roddey; S M Hammerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain.

Authors:  R Buchbinder; S Green; J M Youd
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003

3.  A Preliminary Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders: A Report from the OMERACT 2016 Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Rachelle Buchbinder; Matthew J Page; Hsiaomin Huang; Arianne P Verhagen; Dorcas Beaton; Christian Kopkow; Mario Lenza; Nitin B Jain; Bethan Richards; Pamela Richards; Marieke Voshaar; Danielle van der Windt; Joel J Gagnier
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2017-01-15       Impact factor: 4.666

4.  Clinical outcomes of hemiarthroplasty and biological resurfacing in patients aged younger than 50 years.

Authors:  L C D R James Hammond; Emery C Lin; Daniel P Harwood; Tristan W Juhan; Eric Gochanour; Emma L Klosterman; Brian J Cole; Gregory P Nicholson; Nikhil N Verma; Anthony A Romeo
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-06-22       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Total shoulder arthroplasty using a subscapularis-sparing approach: a radiographic analysis.

Authors:  David Y Ding; Siddharth A Mahure; Jaleesa A Akuoko; Joseph D Zuckerman; Young W Kwon
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Healing rates and subscapularis fatty infiltration after lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel for exposure during shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peter L C Lapner; Elham Sabri; Kawan Rakhra; Kimberly Bell; George S Athwal
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Occupational factors related to shoulder pain and disability.

Authors:  D P Pope; P R Croft; C M Pritchard; A J Silman; G J Macfarlane
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 8.  Outcomes for subscapularis management techniques in shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  W Stephen Choate; Adam Kwapisz; Amit M Momaya; Richard J Hawkins; John M Tokish
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 9.  A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dianne Bryant; Robert Litchfield; Michael Sandow; Gary M Gartsman; Gordon Guyatt; Alexandra Kirkley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Patient characteristics and clinical management of patients with shoulder pain in U.S. primary care settings: secondary data analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Authors:  James L Wofford; Richard J Mansfield; Raquel S Watkins
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2005-02-03       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  8 in total

1.  [Shoulder arthroplasty].

Authors:  Dennis Wassenaar; André Busch; Alexander Wegner; Marcus Jäger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  Musculoskeletal pain in Parkinson's disease: a narrative review.

Authors:  Lauren Elizabeth Tueth; Ryan P Duncan
Journal:  Neurodegener Dis Manag       Date:  2021-08-19

3.  Is Advanced Imaging to Assess Rotator Cuff Integrity Before Shoulder Arthroplasty Cost-effective? A Decision Modeling Study.

Authors:  Jay M Levin; John Wickman; Alexander L Lazarides; Daniel J Cunningham; Daniel E Goltz; Richard C Mather; Oke Anakwenze; Tally E Lassiter; Christopher S Klifto
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 4.  Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Andrew Davies; Hussain Selmi; Sanjeeve Sabharwal; Martinique Vella-Baldacchino; Alex D Liddle; Peter Reilly
Journal:  J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast       Date:  2022-04-26

5.  Back to basics. The value of clinical examination and traditional human contact between a patient and his physician compared with procedural standardized virtual or presential consultation: a narration.

Authors:  Dominique F Gazielly; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Study protocol: Prosthesis versus Active (ProAct) exercise program in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis - a multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Josefine Beck Larsen; Theis Muncholm Thillemann; Antti P Launonen; Helle Kvistgaard Østergaard; Thomas Falstie-Jensen; Aleksi Reito; Steen Lund Jensen; Inger Mechlenburg
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Shoulder replacement: an epidemiological nationwide study from 2009 to 2019.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Rocco Papalia; Alessandro Castagna; Sergio De Salvatore; Enrico Guerra; Ilaria Piergentili; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 2.562

8.  Primary versus revision total shoulder arthroplasty: comparing relative value and reimbursement trends.

Authors:  John Joseph Carney; Erik Gerlach; Mark Plantz; Peter Raymond Swiatek; Jeremy Marx; Matthew Saltzman; Guido Marra
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2022-01-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.