David S Kao1, Omar A Protzuk2, Robert S O'Connell2. 1. Virginia Commonwealth University Health, 1250 E. Marshall St., Richmond, VA, 23219, USA. David.kao@vcuhealth.org. 2. Virginia Commonwealth University Health, 1250 E. Marshall St., Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is an established treatment method for comminuted proximal humerus fractures. Both cemented and uncemented techniques exist, with uncemented reverse total shoulder offering many theoretical advantages, including improved biologic fixation, absence of cement related complications, and ease of revision if necessary. There are few studies comparing the outcomes of the two techniques. METHODS: The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A search for studies assessing clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures was performed of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Main outcomes included Constant Score (CS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and complication rate. Inclusion criteria were as follows: indication for arthroplasty was fracture; minimum one year follow up; article in English. Exclusion criteria were as follows: review articles; biomechanical or cadaver studies. Quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: A total of 682 studies were identified through the initial search, with 36 studies meeting all inclusion criteria. There were 24 studies investigating cemented technique, 10 studies examining uncemented technique, and two studies involving both techniques. There was no difference in mean follow up between patients receiving a cemented vs. uncemented rTSA (32.3 months vs. 30.6 months, p = 0.06). Patients who received a cemented rTSA had a significantly higher Constant-Murley score than those who received an uncemented rTSA (59.4 vs 55.9, p < .001). There was no difference between the two groups when comparing ASES Scores (77.5 vs 78.6, p = 0.54) and overall complication rates (11.1% vs 11.8%, p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Both cemented and uncemented rTSA are both valid options for treating acute proximal humerus fractures. Cemented rTSA may portend slightly improved clinical outcomes with similar overall complication rates compared to uncemented rTSA for proximal humerus fractures.
BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is an established treatment method for comminuted proximal humerus fractures. Both cemented and uncemented techniques exist, with uncemented reverse total shoulder offering many theoretical advantages, including improved biologic fixation, absence of cement related complications, and ease of revision if necessary. There are few studies comparing the outcomes of the two techniques. METHODS: The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A search for studies assessing clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures was performed of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Main outcomes included Constant Score (CS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and complication rate. Inclusion criteria were as follows: indication for arthroplasty was fracture; minimum one year follow up; article in English. Exclusion criteria were as follows: review articles; biomechanical or cadaver studies. Quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: A total of 682 studies were identified through the initial search, with 36 studies meeting all inclusion criteria. There were 24 studies investigating cemented technique, 10 studies examining uncemented technique, and two studies involving both techniques. There was no difference in mean follow up between patients receiving a cemented vs. uncemented rTSA (32.3 months vs. 30.6 months, p = 0.06). Patients who received a cemented rTSA had a significantly higher Constant-Murley score than those who received an uncemented rTSA (59.4 vs 55.9, p < .001). There was no difference between the two groups when comparing ASES Scores (77.5 vs 78.6, p = 0.54) and overall complication rates (11.1% vs 11.8%, p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Both cemented and uncemented rTSA are both valid options for treating acute proximal humerus fractures. Cemented rTSA may portend slightly improved clinical outcomes with similar overall complication rates compared to uncemented rTSA for proximal humerus fractures.
Authors: J Michael Wiater; James E Moravek; Matthew D Budge; Denise M Koueiter; David Marcantonio; Brett P Wiater Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Mark T Dillon; Heather A Prentice; William E Burfeind; Priscilla H Chan; Ronald A Navarro Journal: Injury Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Jon O Wright; Anthony Ho; Jeremy Kalma; Denise Koueiter; Jason Esterle; David Marcantonio; J Michael Wiater; Brett Wiater Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; William Slikker; Nathan A Mall; Anil K Gupta; Zain Rahman; Daniel Enriquez; Gregory P Nicholson Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Yaiza Lopiz; Carlos García-Fernandez; María Vallejo-Carrasco; Daniel Garriguez-Pérez; Loreto Achaerandio; Carmen Tesoro-Gonzalo; Fernando Marco Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 3.075
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
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01