Literature DB >> 35861875

[Current trends in reverse fracture arthroplasty].

M Warnhoff1, G Jensen2, H Lill2, A Ellwein2.   

Abstract

The reliable results of reverse arthroplasty have made this the preferred treatment method for non-reconstructable proximal humeral fractures. The individual consideration of the patient and the morphological features of the fractures are essential. Computed tomography (CT) images provide crucial information on the perfusion of the humeral head relevant for the prognosis and treatment. In this context a differentiation must be made between hard and soft criteria against a reconstruction. Tuberosities should be reduced whenever possible, because reverse arthroplasty with healed tuberosities provides a better range of motion and more strength for external rotation and anteversion, less complications and longer survival rates. In recent years the trend has been towards anatomical designs of prostheses with a humeral inclination of 135°. Revision rates for primary fracture prostheses are overall low with instability as the main reason for revision surgery, followed by periprosthetic fractures and infections. Reverse fracture arthroplasty has comparable or better clinical results compared to conservative treatment, osteosynthesis for geriatric patients, hemiarthroplasty and prosthesis implantation by elective surgery. Reverse arthroplasties, which were implanted in conditions of fracture sequelae, did not achieve significantly poorer clinical outcome at mid-term follow-up and can significantly improve shoulder function.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Proximal humeral fracture; Surgical procedures, operative; Treatment outcome; Tuberosities

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35861875     DOI: 10.1007/s00113-022-01211-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb)        ISSN: 2731-7021


  53 in total

1.  The effect of component positioning on intrinsic stability of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Philippe Favre; Patrick S Sussmann; Christian Gerber
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 2.  Biomechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jonathan L Berliner; Ashton Regalado-Magdos; C Benjamin Ma; Brian T Feeley
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Effect of the humeral neck-shaft angle and glenosphere lateralization on stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Manuel Ferle; Marc-Frederic Pastor; Jakob Hagenah; Christof Hurschler; Tomas Smith
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Factors affecting the stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Allison L Clouthier; Markus A Hetzler; Graham Fedorak; J Tim Bryant; Kevin J Deluzio; Ryan T Bicknell
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Does reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture portend poorer outcomes than for elective indications?

Authors:  Alexander M Crespo; Tyler A Luthringer; Alexander Frost; Lily Khabie; Christopher Roche; Joseph D Zuckerman; Kenneth A Egol
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients.

Authors:  Derek J Cuff; Derek R Pupello
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus.

Authors:  P Boileau; S G Krishnan; L Tinsi; G Walch; J S Coste; D Molé
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Arthroscopic tissue culture for the evaluation of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Authors:  Matthew F Dilisio; Lindsay R Miller; Jon J P Warner; Laurence D Higgins
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Subscapularis insufficiency and the risk of shoulder dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  T Bradley Edwards; Matthew D Williams; Joanne E Labriola; Hussein A Elkousy; Gary M Gartsman; Daniel P O'Connor
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Age-Independent Clinical Outcome in Proximal Humeral Fractures: 2-Year Results Using the Example of a Precontoured Locking Plate.

Authors:  Rony-Orijit Dey Hazra; Johanna Illner; Karol Szewczyk; Mara Warnhoff; Alexander Ellwein; Robert Maximillian Blach; Helmut Lill; Gunnar Jensen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.