Literature DB >> 35785124

Correlation Between Implant Positioning and Functional Outcomes in Partial Shoulder Resurfacing.

Gilberto Daniel Luz1, Amanda S Cavalcanti2, Júlio Ferreira1, Eduardo Godoy1, Marcus Vinicius Galvão Amaral1, Geraldo da R Motta Filho1.   

Abstract

Objective  The present study aimed to correlate functional outcomes and implant positioning in a case series of partial shoulder resurfacing arthroplasties. Methods  A total of 25 patients were assessed for range of motion, functional outcome per the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score and radiographic findings. Pre- and postoperative data were compared. In addition, patients were grouped according to the cervical-diaphyseal angle (CDA) determined by an anteroposterior radiography and to the retroversion angle (RVA) determined by an axillary radiography. A CDA from 130° to 140° and a RVA from 20° to 40° consisted in ideal positioning (anatomical standard). Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Mann-Whitney test as appropriate. Results  The mean follow-up time was 48.3 months (12 to 67 months). The postoperative functional score (31.5) was higher than the preoperative score (15.5) ( p  < 0.001). In 6 patients, the implant was in anatomical positioning, while implant positioning was considered "nonstandard" in 19 subjects. Seven patients had a CDA < 130°, and 14 patients had a CDA ranging from 130° to 140°; in addition, the CDA was > 140° in 4 subjects. The RVA was up to 20° in 15 patients and ranged from 20° to 40° in 10 subjects. Using these criteria to group patients, the postoperative clinical-functional parameters were not statistically different from the preoperative findings ( p  > 0.05). Conclusion  Partial shoulder resurfacing results in significant postoperative functional recovery in patients with degenerative joint diseases. However, implant positioning assessed by CDA and RVA does not correlate with clinical-functional outcomes and, therefore, it is an inaccurate indicator of surgical success. Level of Evidence IV; Case Series. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).

Entities:  

Keywords:  arthroplasty, replacement, shoulder; prosthesis design; shoulder joint; shoulder prosthesis

Year:  2022        PMID: 35785124      PMCID: PMC9246527          DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729589

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)        ISSN: 0102-3616


  16 in total

1.  The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement.

Authors:  G R Williams; K L Wong; M D Pepe; V Tan; D Silverberg; M L Ramsey; A Karduna; J P Iannotti
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy.

Authors:  Simon R Thomas; Giuseppe Sforza; Ofer Levy; Stephen A Copeland
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use.

Authors:  Christopher R Constant; Christian Gerber; Roger J H Emery; Jens Ole Søjbjerg; Frank Gohlke; Pascal Boileau
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 4.  Shoulder resurfacing.

Authors:  Derrick L Burgess; Mike S McGrath; Peter M Bonutti; David R Marker; Ronald E Delanois; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Surface replacement of the humeral head in the rheumatoid shoulder.

Authors:  U Rydholm; J Sjögren
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Geometrical analysis results of 42 resurfacing shoulder prostheses: A CT scan study.

Authors:  J-Y Deladerrière; C Szymanski; T Vervoort; J-F Budzik; C Maynou
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.256

Review 7.  Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique.

Authors:  Michael L Pearl
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age.

Authors:  David S Bailie; Paulo J Llinas; Todd S Ellenbecker
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Overstuffing in resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a potential risk for failure.

Authors:  Pieter C Geervliet; Jore H Willems; Inger N Sierevelt; Cornelis P J Visser; Arthur van Noort
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Preoperative parameters that predict postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and range of motion with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Richard J Friedman; Josef Eichinger; Bradley Schoch; Thomas Wright; Joseph Zuckerman; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Charlotte Bolch; Chris Roche
Journal:  JSES Open Access       Date:  2019-11-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.