Ki-Yong An1, Ji-Yeon Park1, Taek-Rim Yoon2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gwangju Veterans Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, South Korea. tryoon@chonnam.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared the clinical and radiologic results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either the subscapularis-sparing deltopectoral approach (SSDA) or traditional deltopectoral approach (TDA) in cuff tear arthropathy patients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We retrospectively evaluated 71 patients who underwent RSA for cuff tear arthropathy between July 2014 and December 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: TDA (34 cases) and SSDA (37 cases). The mean patient age was 78.6 years, and the mean (range) follow-up period was 23.5 (12-48) months. Clinical results were assessed using the Visual Analogue pain Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score (ASES), Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS), and Constant score. Radiographic indicators prosthesis-scapular neck angle (PSNA), peg-glenoid rim distance (PGRD), inferior overhang, acromion-greater tuberosity (AT) distance, and glenoid-greater tuberosity (GT) distance) were assessed, and notching severity was assessed according to the Nerot-Sirveaux classification. RESULTS: The radiographic indicator results of the TDA and SSDA groups were as follows: PSNA (131.4° ± 17.2°, 136.1° ± 7.7°), PGRD (18.7 mm ± 2.9 mm, 21.4 mm ± 2.0 mm), AT distance (38.3 mm ±6.9 mm, 37.5 mm ± 6.8 mm), GT distance (51.6 mm ± 6.3 mm, 51.4 mm ± 5.3 mm), and inferior overhang (4.4 mm ± 2.2 mm, 2.9 mm ± 1.3 mm). PGRD and inferior overhang showed statistically significant differences between groups, but the clinical results showed no significant differences. There were no complications such as neurovascular injury, implant loosening, surgical site infection, or acromion fracture in either group. CONCLUSION: SSDA for RSA showed no significant differences in clinical and radiological results compared with TDA. Therefore, SSDA is a viable alternative for RSA in cuff tear arthropathy.
PURPOSE: This study compared the clinical and radiologic results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either the subscapularis-sparing deltopectoral approach (SSDA) or traditional deltopectoral approach (TDA) in cuff tear arthropathy patients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We retrospectively evaluated 71 patients who underwent RSA for cuff tear arthropathy between July 2014 and December 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: TDA (34 cases) and SSDA (37 cases). The mean patient age was 78.6 years, and the mean (range) follow-up period was 23.5 (12-48) months. Clinical results were assessed using the Visual Analogue pain Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score (ASES), Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS), and Constant score. Radiographic indicators prosthesis-scapular neck angle (PSNA), peg-glenoid rim distance (PGRD), inferior overhang, acromion-greater tuberosity (AT) distance, and glenoid-greater tuberosity (GT) distance) were assessed, and notching severity was assessed according to the Nerot-Sirveaux classification. RESULTS: The radiographic indicator results of the TDA and SSDA groups were as follows: PSNA (131.4° ± 17.2°, 136.1° ± 7.7°), PGRD (18.7 mm ± 2.9 mm, 21.4 mm ± 2.0 mm), AT distance (38.3 mm ±6.9 mm, 37.5 mm ± 6.8 mm), GT distance (51.6 mm ± 6.3 mm, 51.4 mm ± 5.3 mm), and inferior overhang (4.4 mm ± 2.2 mm, 2.9 mm ± 1.3 mm). PGRD and inferior overhang showed statistically significant differences between groups, but the clinical results showed no significant differences. There were no complications such as neurovascular injury, implant loosening, surgical site infection, or acromion fracture in either group. CONCLUSION: SSDA for RSA showed no significant differences in clinical and radiological results compared with TDA. Therefore, SSDA is a viable alternative for RSA in cuff tear arthropathy.
Authors: Sergio Gutiérrez; R Michael Greiwe; Mark A Frankle; Steven Siegal; William E Lee Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 3.019
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: Randall J Otto; Nazeem A Virani; Jonathan C Levy; Phillip T Nigro; Derek J Cuff; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 3.019