Literature DB >> 34904964

Improved Clinical Outcomes After Lateralized Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Jóni Nunes1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, Renato Andrade2,3,5, Clara Azevedo1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, Nuno V Ferreira4, Nuno Oliveira1,4, Emílio Calvo12, João Espregueira-Mendes2,3,9,13, Nuno Sevivas4,9,14,15.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has emerged as an attempt to improve on some of the drawbacks of conventional RSA, such as glenoid notching and decrease in ROM. Although this new design is being used in clinical practice, the evidence is mostly limited to case series and has not been systematically reviewed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How much did patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and ROM improve among patients who receive a lateralized RSA implant? (2) What proportion of shoulders experience complications, revision surgery, or scapular notching?
METHODS: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from database inception to January 31, 2020. We included clinical studies that reported the PROMs and/or ROM of patients with insufficient rotator cuffs undergoing RSA with a lateralized implant. All other types of studies and those including patients with fractures, instability or escape, infection, rheumatologic disease, neurologic disease, or revision surgeries as an indication for RSA were excluded. PROMs and ROM were collected and are reported as mean values and ranges. Complications, revision surgery, and scapular notching are presented as proportions. The percentage of the mean change relative to the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using the anchor-based value for each outcome. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. The initial search yielded 678 studies; 61 full-text articles were analyzed according to our eligibility criteria. After a detailed analysis, we included nine studies that evaluated 1670 patients (68% of whom [1130] were women) with a mean age of 71.8 ± 0.6 years. The mean follow-up period was 41.1 ± 5.6 months. The mean MINORS score was 12 ± 4.
RESULTS: Active ROM improved for forward flexion (mean change 47° to 82°; MCID 12°), abduction (mean change 43° to 80°; MCID 7°), external rotation (mean change 8° to 39°; MCID 3°), and internal rotation (mean change -2 to 1 points). PROM scores also improved, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean change 20 to 50; MCID 20.9 points), Constant score (mean change 28 to 40; MCID 5.7 points), Simple Shoulder Test score (mean change 3 to 7; MCID 2.4 points), and VAS score (mean change -1.8 to -4.9; MCID -1.6 points). The proportion of shoulders with complications ranged from 0% (0 of 44) to 21% (30 of 140), and the proportion of shoulders with scapular notching ranged from 0% (0 of 76) to 29% (41 of 140). The proportion of patients undergoing revision ranged from 0% (0 of 44) to 13% (10 of 76) at short-term follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Lateralized RSA is a reasonable alternative to medialized implants for patients with rotator cuff insufficiency because it might reduce the likelihood of scapular notching without apparently compromising PROMs or ROM. More studies are required to determine whether there is a direct correlation between the amount of lateralization and PROMs or ROM.
Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34904964      PMCID: PMC9007193          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  30 in total

Review 1.  Scapular notching: Recognition and strategies to minimize clinical impact.

Authors:  Gregory P Nicholson; Eric J Strauss; Seth L Sherman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures in older adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ana Mata-Fink; Mary Meinke; Charlene Jones; Bokyung Kim; John-Erik Bell
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive rotator cuff tear: risk factors for poor functional improvement.

Authors:  Robert U Hartzler; Brandon M Steen; Michael M Hussey; Michael C Cusick; Benjamin J Cottrell; Rachel E Clark; Mark A Frankle
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  The TESS reverse shoulder arthroplasty without a stem in the treatment of cuff-deficient shoulder conditions: clinical and radiographic results.

Authors:  Philippe Teissier; Jacques Teissier; Pascal Kouyoumdjian; Gérard Asencio
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 5.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears and cuff tear arthropathy: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Petrillo; U G Longo; R Papalia; V Denaro
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-04-25

6.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty using an implant with a lateral center of rotation: outcomes, complications, and the influence of experience.

Authors:  Samer S Hasan; Matthew P Gordon; Jason A Ramsey; Martin S Levy
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2014-09

7.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Jason O Holcomb; Daniel J Hebert; Mark A Mighell; Page E Dunning; Derek R Pupello; Michele D Pliner; Mark A Frankle
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Does lateralisation of the centre of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoid scapular notching? Clinical and radiological review of one hundred and forty cases with forty five months of follow-up.

Authors:  Denis Katz; Philippe Valenti; Jean Kany; Kamil Elkholti; Jean-David Werthel
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Are Age and Patient Gender Associated With Different Rates and Magnitudes of Clinical Improvement After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Richard J Friedman; Emilie V Cheung; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Thomas Wright; Ryan W Simovitch; Charlotte Bolch; Christopher P Roche; Joseph D Zuckerman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Raul Barco; Olga D Savvidou; John W Sperling; Joaquín Sanchez-Sotelo; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-03-13
View more
  1 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Improved Clinical Outcomes After Lateralized Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Winston J Warme
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 4.176

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.