Literature DB >> 32713666

The risk of postoperative scapular spine fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty is increased with an onlay humeral stem.

Georges Haidamous1, Alexandre Lädermann2, Mark A Frankle3, R Allen Gorman4, Patrick J Denard5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of lateralization and distalization on scapular spine fracture (SSF) after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The hypothesis was that postoperative distalization would increase the risk of SSF, whereas lateralization would not.
METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review was performed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively on primary RSAs with 3 different implants, 2 with an inlay design (n = 342) and 1 with an onlay design (n = 84). Functional outcome, range of motion, stem design, and radiographic measurements, including acromiohumeral distance and lateralization, were compared between groups with and without fracture.
RESULTS: The incidence of SSF in the onlay group (11.9%) was significantly higher compared with the inlay group (4.7%; P = .043). Postoperative acromiohumeral distance was approximately 4 mm higher in the SSF group (37.5 mm) compared with the control group (33.7 mm; P = .042), whereas lateralization was similar between the 2 groups (52.8 mm vs. 53.9 mm; P = .362). Higher return to activity (92.1% vs. 71.4%; P < .001) as well as postoperative forward flexion was observed in the group without fracture (135° vs. 120°; P = .009).
CONCLUSION: Increased postoperative distalization is associated with an increased risk of SSF after RSA. An onlay stem resulted in a 10 mm increase in distalization compared with an inlay stem, and a 2.5 times increased risk of SSF. Lateralization, however, does not appear to increase the risk of SSF.
Copyright © 2020 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; acromial fracture; acromiohumeral distance; humeral lateralization; humeral offset; inlay stem; onlay stem; scapular spine fracture

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32713666     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.036

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  [Current trends in reverse fracture arthroplasty].

Authors:  M Warnhoff; G Jensen; H Lill; A Ellwein
Journal:  Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-21

Review 2.  Innovations in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nels Leafblad; Elise Asghar; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 3.  Mechanical complications and fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty related to different design types and their rates: part I.

Authors:  Marko Nabergoj; Patrick J Denard; Philippe Collin; Rihard Trebše; Alexandre Lädermann
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-11-19

Review 4.  Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Biomechanics.

Authors:  Christopher P Roche
Journal:  J Funct Morphol Kinesiol       Date:  2022-01-19

5.  A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design.

Authors:  Michael J Bercik; Brian C Werner; Benjamin W Sears; Reuben Gobezie; Evan Lederman; Patrick J Denard
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Problems, complications, and reinterventions in 4893 onlay humeral lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties: a systematic review (part I-complications).

Authors:  Francesco Ascione; Alfredo Schiavone Panni; Adriano Braile; Katia Corona; Giuseppe Toro; Nicola Capuano; Alfonso M Romano
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2021-07-08
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.