Bernardo Nunes1, Daniela Linhares2, Francisca Costa3, Nuno Neves4, Rui Claro5, Manuel Ribeiro Silva6. 1. Orthopedics Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: jbernardo.m.nunes@gmail.com. 2. Orthopedics Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal; Departamento de Medicina da Comunidade, Informação e Decisão em Saúde, MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Patient-Centered Innovation and Technologies Group, PaCeIT-Center for Health Technology and Services Research, CINTESIS, Porto, Portugal. 3. Orthopedics Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal. 4. Orthopedics Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal; Orthopedics Department, CUF Porto Hospital, Porto, Portugal; Surgery and Physiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; i3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; INEB-Instituto Nacional de Engenharia Biomédica, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 5. Shoulder Unit, Orthopedics Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 6. Orthopedics Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal; Orthopedics Department, CUF Porto Hospital, Porto, Portugal; i3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; INEB-Instituto Nacional de Engenharia Biomédica, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS/ BACKGROUND: Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (L-RSA) was proposed to overcome some limitations of the original Grammont-style design (S-RSA). This systematic review aims to compare the clinical and functional outcomes and complications of S-RSA with L-RSA, and to assess the individual results of metallic and bony lateralization implants. METHODS: A systematic search from January 1980 to December 2019 was performed. Studies were selected in 2 phases by 2 independent reviewers; disagreements were solved by discussion. Inclusion criteria were: (1) original studies; (2) written in English or French; (3) adult individuals submitted to RSA surgery; and (4) RSA with a lateralization device in at least one of the groups. Exclusion criteria were: (1) nonoriginal studies or case reports; (2) absence of clinical or radiographic outcomes; and (3) no comparison group using S-RSA. Data were extracted for outcomes of functional status (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, visual analog scale, Simple Shoulder Test, Subjective Shoulder Value, Activities of Daily Life that require External Rotation, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), range of motion (ROM), complications, revisions, and notching. Meta-analyses were performed when possible. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Fifteen articles/16 studies were included (865 participants: 440 L-RSA and 425 S-RSA). Most studies found no differences between the L-RSA and S-RSA groups in qualitative and meta-analysis for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, Simple Shoulder Test, Activities of Daily Life that require External Rotation, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly lower visual analog scale (1 point) and higher Subjective Shoulder Value (6 points) in L-RSA than in S-RSA. No significant differences were found in the qualitative analyses of most studies regarding ROM in forward elevation, abduction, and internal/external rotation, but meta-analysis reported a significantly higher external rotation in L-RSA groups and specifically in osseous lateralization. Complication rate was significantly lower in L-RSA (odds ratio = 0.38), but no significant differences were found for revision rates. Notching rate was significantly lower in the L-RSA group (odds ratio = 0.14), both for osseous and metallic lateralization. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: This systematic review focused on studies comparing L-RSA and S-RSA and found significantly lower notching and complication rates in L-RSA groups. This review highlighted similar outcomes in clinical scores and a slight advantage for L-RSA in ROM, especially in external rotation. L-RSA was not associated with increased revision rates, while presenting lower complication and notching rates. Inclusion of studies with metallic and osseous lateralization has helped to provide further evidence on this subject, but heterogeneity and low evidence levels of the included studies may limit our conclusions.
HYPOTHESIS/ BACKGROUND: Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (L-RSA) was proposed to overcome some limitations of the original Grammont-style design (S-RSA). This systematic review aims to compare the clinical and functional outcomes and complications of S-RSA with L-RSA, and to assess the individual results of metallic and bony lateralization implants. METHODS: A systematic search from January 1980 to December 2019 was performed. Studies were selected in 2 phases by 2 independent reviewers; disagreements were solved by discussion. Inclusion criteria were: (1) original studies; (2) written in English or French; (3) adult individuals submitted to RSA surgery; and (4) RSA with a lateralization device in at least one of the groups. Exclusion criteria were: (1) nonoriginal studies or case reports; (2) absence of clinical or radiographic outcomes; and (3) no comparison group using S-RSA. Data were extracted for outcomes of functional status (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, visual analog scale, Simple Shoulder Test, Subjective Shoulder Value, Activities of Daily Life that require External Rotation, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), range of motion (ROM), complications, revisions, and notching. Meta-analyses were performed when possible. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Fifteen articles/16 studies were included (865 participants: 440 L-RSA and 425 S-RSA). Most studies found no differences between the L-RSA and S-RSA groups in qualitative and meta-analysis for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, Simple Shoulder Test, Activities of Daily Life that require External Rotation, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly lower visual analog scale (1 point) and higher Subjective Shoulder Value (6 points) in L-RSA than in S-RSA. No significant differences were found in the qualitative analyses of most studies regarding ROM in forward elevation, abduction, and internal/external rotation, but meta-analysis reported a significantly higher external rotation in L-RSA groups and specifically in osseous lateralization. Complication rate was significantly lower in L-RSA (odds ratio = 0.38), but no significant differences were found for revision rates. Notching rate was significantly lower in the L-RSA group (odds ratio = 0.14), both for osseous and metallic lateralization. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: This systematic review focused on studies comparing L-RSA and S-RSA and found significantly lower notching and complication rates in L-RSA groups. This review highlighted similar outcomes in clinical scores and a slight advantage for L-RSA in ROM, especially in external rotation. L-RSA was not associated with increased revision rates, while presenting lower complication and notching rates. Inclusion of studies with metallic and osseous lateralization has helped to provide further evidence on this subject, but heterogeneity and low evidence levels of the included studies may limit our conclusions.
Authors: Philipp Moroder; Manuel Urvoy; Patric Raiss; Jean-David Werthel; Doruk Akgün; Jean Chaoui; Paul Siegert Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.755