Mohamed A Imam1,2,3, Jörg Neumann4, Werner Siebert5, Sabine Mai5, Olivier Verborgt6, Franziska Eckers1, Leo Jacobs7, Dominik C Meyer1. 1. Shoulder and Elbow unit, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Rowley Bristow Orthopaedic Unit, Ashford and St Peter's Hospital, Ashford, UK. 3. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, HELIOS ENDO-Klinik Hamburg GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vitos Orthopädische Klinik Kassel GmbH, Kassel, Germany. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, AZ Monica Hospital and University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Oldham Hospital, Oldham, UK.
Abstract
Background: The aim of our prospective multicentre study is to evaluate the five-year follow-up outcomes of primary reverse shoulder replacement utilizing two different designs of glenoid baseplates. Methods: There were 159 reverse shoulder replacements (91 cemented and 68 uncemented stems, 67 Trabecular Metal baseplates and 92 Anatomical Shoulder baseplates in 152 patients (99 women) with a mean age of 74.5 (58-90) years. The principal diagnosis was rotator cuff arthropathy in 108 shoulders. Results: Clinical and functional results improved significantly overall; the adjusted Constant Murley score improved from 28.2 ± 13.3 pre-operatively to 75.5 ± 22.8 (p < 0.0001) and the mean Subjective Shoulder Value improved from 27.5 ± 20 to 73.8 ± 21.3 points (p < 0.0001). Radiologically, there was good bony stability in 88% and 86% of cemented and uncemented stems without significant impact on the Constant Murley score and Subjective Shoulder Value at one, two and five years post-surgery. There were no significant clinical differences between Trabecular Metal and Anatomical Shoulder baseplates at five years. There were four cases of intraoperative shaft fractures that were managed with cables. Although the Trabecular Metal baseplates showed better integration radiologically, there was no significant difference in the mean of Constant Murley, Subjective Shoulder Value and the range of motion depending on the grade of inferior scapular notching at one-, two- and five-year intervals. Conclusions: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores the function in shoulder with significant improvements in function and moderate complications with minor differences between both designs of baseplates that were not reflected clinically.
Background: The aim of our prospective multicentre study is to evaluate the five-year follow-up outcomes of primary reverse shoulder replacement utilizing two different designs of glenoid baseplates. Methods: There were 159 reverse shoulder replacements (91 cemented and 68 uncemented stems, 67 Trabecular Metal baseplates and 92 Anatomical Shoulder baseplates in 152 patients (99 women) with a mean age of 74.5 (58-90) years. The principal diagnosis was rotator cuff arthropathy in 108 shoulders. Results: Clinical and functional results improved significantly overall; the adjusted Constant Murley score improved from 28.2 ± 13.3 pre-operatively to 75.5 ± 22.8 (p < 0.0001) and the mean Subjective Shoulder Value improved from 27.5 ± 20 to 73.8 ± 21.3 points (p < 0.0001). Radiologically, there was good bony stability in 88% and 86% of cemented and uncemented stems without significant impact on the Constant Murley score and Subjective Shoulder Value at one, two and five years post-surgery. There were no significant clinical differences between Trabecular Metal and Anatomical Shoulder baseplates at five years. There were four cases of intraoperative shaft fractures that were managed with cables. Although the Trabecular Metal baseplates showed better integration radiologically, there was no significant difference in the mean of Constant Murley, Subjective Shoulder Value and the range of motion depending on the grade of inferior scapular notching at one-, two- and five-year intervals. Conclusions: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores the function in shoulder with significant improvements in function and moderate complications with minor differences between both designs of baseplates that were not reflected clinically.
Authors: Ryan W Simovitch; Matthias A Zumstein; Eveline Lohri; Naeder Helmy; Christian Gerber Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Andrew Bogle; Matthew Budge; Adam Richman; Richard J Miller; J Michael Wiater; Ilya Voloshin Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Daniel C Acevedo; Corinne Vanbeek; Mark D Lazarus; Gerald R Williams; Joseph A Abboud Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: K Theivendran; M Varghese; R Large; M Bateman; M Morgan; A Tambe; M Espag; T Cresswell; D I Clark Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: Bryan Wall; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Daniel P O'Connor; T Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.284