Literature DB >> 35034145

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly. Cemented or uncemented stem?

Yaiza Lopiz1,2, Carlos García-Fernandez3, María Vallejo-Carrasco3, Daniel Garriguez-Pérez3, Loreto Achaerandio3, Carmen Tesoro-Gonzalo3, Fernando Marco3,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to compare functional outcomes, radiographic stem changes and complication rate in patients with proximal humeral fractures operated with cemented or uncemented RSA.
METHODS: Retrospective review of 68 primary RSAs in PHF, 45 cemented/23 uncemented. Functional outcomes were evaluated according to constant, ASES scales and the range of motion (ROM). Radiographic assessment was performed at a minimum of two years post-operatively.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up cemented/uncemented was 37.8/26.5 months (p = .04) and the mean age 78/80 years old (p = .09). The functional outcome and range of movement were equivalent in the two groups except for the forward flexion that was significantly higher in the cemented group (p = .03). Stress shielding was seen in 30.4% of uncemented group and none in the cemented. Anatomic tuberosity healing was significantly higher with uncemented components compared with cemented components (64% vs 91%, p = .02). Cemented stems had radiolucent lines with a width of 2 mm or more in three or more Gruen zones in 9% vs 0% in the uncemented group and an evident change in the stem position was present in 4% vs 0% in the non-cemented group.
CONCLUSION: At mid-term follow-up, no differences in functional outcomes were detected depending on the stem fixation technique. Cemented stems, however, have a complication rate (including stem loosening) significantly higher than press-fit stems.
© 2021. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cemented; Humeral prosthesis; Loosening; Lucency; Press-fit; Proximal humeral fractures; Radiological outcome; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Shoulder function; Uncemented

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35034145     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-021-05284-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  32 in total

1.  Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Mika Palvanen; Pekka Kannus; Seppo Niemi; Jari Parkkari
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  An evaluation of the radiological changes around the Grammont reverse geometry shoulder arthroplasty after eight to 12 years.

Authors:  B Melis; M DeFranco; A Lädermann; D Molé; L Favard; C Nérot; C Maynou; G Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-09

3.  Cemented versus uncemented fixation of humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial-A JOINTs Canada Project.

Authors:  Robert B Litchfield; Micheal D McKee; Robert Balyk; Scott Mandel; Richard Holtby; Robert Hollinshead; Darren Drosdowech; S Elizabeth Wambolt; Sharon H Griffin; Robert McCormack
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  A cohort comparison of humeral implant designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does implant design lead to lower rates of complications and revision?

Authors:  R Allen Gorman; Kaitlyn N Christmas; Peter Simon; Mark A Mighell; Mark A Frankle
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Effects of cemented versus press-fit primary humeral stem fixation in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Madeleine A Salesky; Trevor R Grace; Brian T Feeley; C Benjamin Ma; Alan L Zhang
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Outcomes of Uncemented Versus Cemented Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures.

Authors:  Bradley Schoch; William Aibinder; Jordan Walters; John Sperling; Thomas Throckmorton; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Thomas Duquin
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 1.390

7.  Press-fit vs. cemented humeral stem fixation for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 9.5 years.

Authors:  Matthieu Mazaleyrat; Luc Favard; Pascal Garaud; Pascal Boileau; Julien Berhouet
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 8.  Evaluation of the osteoporotic proximal humeral fracture and strategies for structural augmentation during surgical treatment.

Authors:  Surena Namdari; Pramod B Voleti; Samir Mehta
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Elucidating trends in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty procedures: a retrieval study evaluating clinical, radiographic, and functional outcomes data.

Authors:  Brett P Wiater; Erin A Baker; Meagan R Salisbury; Denise M Koueiter; Kevin C Baker; Betsy M Nolan; J Michael Wiater
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Humeral-sided Radiographic Changes Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tyler J Brolin; Ryan M Cox; John G Horneff Iii; Surena Namdari; Joseph A Abboud; Kristen Nicholson; Matthew L Ramsey
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2020-01
View more
  2 in total

1.  Clinical outcomes of cemented vs. uncemented reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review.

Authors:  David S Kao; Omar A Protzuk; Robert S O'Connell
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-10-02

Review 2.  The Evolution of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Its Current Use in the Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Older Population.

Authors:  Gabriel Larose; Mandeep S Virk
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 4.964

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.