A M Schwarz1, G M Hohenberger2, M Sauerschnig3, M Niks3, G Lipnik2, G Mattiassich3, M Zacherl3, F J Seibert2, M Plecko3. 1. AUVA - Trauma Hospital (UKH) Styria | Graz, Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Graz, Göstinger Straße 24, 8020, Graz, Austria. angelika.schwarz@auva.at. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. AUVA - Trauma Hospital (UKH) Styria | Graz, Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Graz, Göstinger Straße 24, 8020, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as a treatment option in complex proximal humeral fractures, has significantly extended the surgical armamentarium. The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term outcome following fracture RSA in acute or sequelae, as well as salvage procedures. It was hypothesized that revision RSA (SRSA) leads to similar mid-term results as primary fracture treatment by RSA (PRSA). METHODS: This retrospective study describes the radiological and clinical mid-term outcomes in a standardized single-centre and Inlay design. Patients who underwent RSA in fracture care between 2008 and 2017 were included (minimum follow-up: 2 years, minimum age: 60 years). The assessment tools used for functional findings were range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale, absolute (CS) plus normative Constant Score, QuickDASH, and Subjective Shoulder Value. All adverse events as well as the radiological results and their clinical correlations were statistically analysed (using p < .05and 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: Following fracture RSA, 68 patients were included (mean age: 72.5 years, mean follow-up: 46 months). Forty-two underwent primary RSA (PRSA), and 26 underwent revision RSA (SRSA). Adverse advents were observed in 13% (n = 9/68). No statistically significant results were found for the scores of the PRSA and SRSA groups, while the failed osteosynthesis SRSA subgroup obtained statistically significantly negative values for ROM subzones (flexion: p = .020, abduction: p = .020). Decreased instances of tubercle healing were observed for the in PRSA group relative to the SRSA group (p = .006). The absence of bony healing of the tubercles was related to significant negative clinical and subjective outcomes (all scores: p < .05, external rotation: p= .019). Significant postoperative improvements were evaluated in the SRSA group (CS: 23 to 56 at mean, p = .001), the time from index surgery to operative revision revealed no associations in functional findings. CONCLUSIONS: RSA is an effective option in severe shoulder fracture management with predictable results for salvage as well as first-line treatment. Promising mid-term functional results, reasonable implant survival rates, and high patient satisfaction can be achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as a treatment option in complex proximal humeral fractures, has significantly extended the surgical armamentarium. The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term outcome following fracture RSA in acute or sequelae, as well as salvage procedures. It was hypothesized that revision RSA (SRSA) leads to similar mid-term results as primary fracture treatment by RSA (PRSA). METHODS: This retrospective study describes the radiological and clinical mid-term outcomes in a standardized single-centre and Inlay design. Patients who underwent RSA in fracture care between 2008 and 2017 were included (minimum follow-up: 2 years, minimum age: 60 years). The assessment tools used for functional findings were range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale, absolute (CS) plus normative Constant Score, QuickDASH, and Subjective Shoulder Value. All adverse events as well as the radiological results and their clinical correlations were statistically analysed (using p < .05and 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: Following fracture RSA, 68 patients were included (mean age: 72.5 years, mean follow-up: 46 months). Forty-two underwent primary RSA (PRSA), and 26 underwent revision RSA (SRSA). Adverse advents were observed in 13% (n = 9/68). No statistically significant results were found for the scores of the PRSA and SRSA groups, while the failed osteosynthesis SRSA subgroup obtained statistically significantly negative values for ROM subzones (flexion: p = .020, abduction: p = .020). Decreased instances of tubercle healing were observed for the in PRSA group relative to the SRSA group (p = .006). The absence of bony healing of the tubercles was related to significant negative clinical and subjective outcomes (all scores: p < .05, external rotation: p= .019). Significant postoperative improvements were evaluated in the SRSA group (CS: 23 to 56 at mean, p = .001), the time from index surgery to operative revision revealed no associations in functional findings. CONCLUSIONS: RSA is an effective option in severe shoulder fracture management with predictable results for salvage as well as first-line treatment. Promising mid-term functional results, reasonable implant survival rates, and high patient satisfaction can be achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complex shoulder fracture care; Primary fracture reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Primary fracture treatment; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Salvage procedure; Secondary fracture reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Secondary fracture treatment; Tubercle bone stock healing
Authors: Justin A Jacobson; Thomas R Duquin; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Cathy D Schleck; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Julie Agel; Clifford B Jones; Anthony G Sanzone; Matthew Camuso; M Bradford Henley Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Michael Klein; Miriam Juschka; Bernd Hinkenjann; Bernhard Scherger; Peter A W Ostermann Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512