Humeral bone resorption after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using uncemented stem.
Humeral bone
bone resorption
reverse shoulder arthroplasty
risk factor
stress shielding
uncemented humeral stem
Journal
JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
entrez:
21
3
2020
pubmed:
21
3
2020
medline:
21
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Humeral stem loosening has gained attention as it has been identified as a cause of revision surgery in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). In RSA, humeral stem revision is very difficult if there is humeral bone loss because of stress shielding. Some studies of humeral bone resorption after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty have been published, but there are few detailed reports of humeral bone resorption after RSA. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of humeral bone resorption after RSA procedures and to evaluate the risk factors for bone resorption. This study included 48 shoulders that underwent RSA with an uncemented humeral stem from July 2014 to May 2017 and were followed up for more than 1 year. The prevalence of humeral bone resorption and risk factors were investigated. Logistic, multiple logistic, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the data. Grade 0 bone resorption, the most advanced grade, occurred in 8 shoulders (16.7%); grade 1, in 0 (0%); grade 2, in 17 (35.4%); grade 3, in 14 (29.2%); and grade 4, in 9 (18.8%). A high occurrence of bone absorption was observed in zones 1, 2, and 7. Grade 4 bone resorption did not occur in zones 3, 5, and 6. Female sex and an onlay-type stem were significant independent risk factors for grade 4 bone resorption. Bone resorption was frequently observed in the greater tuberosity, lateral diaphysis, and calcar region. Significant risk factors included female sex and an onlay-type stem.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Humeral stem loosening has gained attention as it has been identified as a cause of revision surgery in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). In RSA, humeral stem revision is very difficult if there is humeral bone loss because of stress shielding. Some studies of humeral bone resorption after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty have been published, but there are few detailed reports of humeral bone resorption after RSA. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of humeral bone resorption after RSA procedures and to evaluate the risk factors for bone resorption.
METHODS
METHODS
This study included 48 shoulders that underwent RSA with an uncemented humeral stem from July 2014 to May 2017 and were followed up for more than 1 year. The prevalence of humeral bone resorption and risk factors were investigated. Logistic, multiple logistic, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Grade 0 bone resorption, the most advanced grade, occurred in 8 shoulders (16.7%); grade 1, in 0 (0%); grade 2, in 17 (35.4%); grade 3, in 14 (29.2%); and grade 4, in 9 (18.8%). A high occurrence of bone absorption was observed in zones 1, 2, and 7. Grade 4 bone resorption did not occur in zones 3, 5, and 6. Female sex and an onlay-type stem were significant independent risk factors for grade 4 bone resorption.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Bone resorption was frequently observed in the greater tuberosity, lateral diaphysis, and calcar region. Significant risk factors included female sex and an onlay-type stem.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32195476
doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.11.007
pii: S2468-6026(19)30172-X
pmc: PMC7075776
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
138-143Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Author(s).
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jan;27(1):53-58
pubmed: 28865965
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6):1065-1071
pubmed: 29307672
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Feb;27(2):217-223
pubmed: 28965688
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Apr 2;96(7):e54
pubmed: 24695931
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1163-9
pubmed: 26897311
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1589-1597
pubmed: 28395945
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 May;137(5):679-684
pubmed: 28337535
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Apr;27(4):701-710
pubmed: 29290604
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Feb;102(1 Suppl):S33-43
pubmed: 26879334
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Apr;25(4):650-7
pubmed: 26560021
Int Orthop. 2015 Jul;39(7):1351-7
pubmed: 25900366
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):1028-35
pubmed: 24929745
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Jan-Feb;12(1):35-9
pubmed: 12610484
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):146-57
pubmed: 21134666
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Sep;93(9):1240-6
pubmed: 21911536
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Nov;23(11):1662-8
pubmed: 24881833
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 May;(218):217-24
pubmed: 3568483
JBJS Rev. 2018 May;6(5):e5
pubmed: 29762342
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jan;27(1):10-16
pubmed: 29032988
Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013;71(4):284-93
pubmed: 24344621
Bone Joint J. 2018 May 1;100-B(5):603-609
pubmed: 29701085
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Nov;26(11):1984-1989
pubmed: 28688934
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1592-600
pubmed: 27107733
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S13-8
pubmed: 17067822
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1359-70
pubmed: 23706884