Healing Rate and Clinical Outcomes of Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy for Anatomic Shoulder Arthroplasty.
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder
/ adverse effects
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Osteotomy
/ methods
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Postoperative Complications
/ physiopathology
Radiography
Range of Motion, Articular
Recovery of Function
Retrospective Studies
Shoulder
/ diagnostic imaging
Wound Healing
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews
ISSN: 2474-7661
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101724868
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
25
08
2019
accepted:
06
01
2020
entrez:
23
5
2020
pubmed:
23
5
2020
medline:
23
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several techniques are available for subscapularis management during total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) is advocated owing to improved biomechanical strength and high rates of healing. However, displacement or nonunion of the LTO could theoretically cause functional deficits for the affected shoulder. The purpose of this study is to examine the healing rate and clinical outcomes of LTO in patients undergoing anatomic TSA. A retrospective review of our institution's prospectively enrolled TSA registry was performed. Patients undergoing primary TSA who had an LTO performed and radiographs at a minimum of 3 months postoperatively were included. Two fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons reviewed all radiographs and categorized LTO healing into three groups: healed, nondisplaced nonunion, or displaced nonunion. Physical examination data and patient-reported outcome scores including American Shoulder and Elbow Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores, and the Veteran Rand mental and physical component scores were obtained at a median of 1 year after surgery. Comparative statistical analysis was performed on the healed versus nondisplaced nonunion groups. We included 142 shoulders in 130 patients who met the inclusion criteria with an average age of 65.2 years (SD: 10.3). Radiographic evaluation at a median of 1.0 years postoperatively (range: 6 months to 2.2 years) revealed 124 (87%) healed LTO, 12 (8%) nondisplaced nonunions, and six (5%) displaced nonunions. The median American Shoulder and Elbow Score total score was 89.2 (IQR: 72.2, 98.3) in the healed LTO group versus 96.7 (30, 98.3) in the LTO nondisplaced nonunion group ( Although there is a risk of nonunion and displacement using the LTO technique in TSA, the overall clinical outcomes and radiographic union rates are high with a very low risk of revision surgery. In addition, radiographic evidence of nonunion does not significantly correlate with clinical outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32440624
doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00119
pii: JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00119
pmc: PMC7209808
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Schiffern or an immediate family member serves as a paid consultant to Lima USA, Medacta, and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Dr. Hamid or an immediate family member serves as a paid consultant to Zimmer Biomet. None of the following authors or any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article: Dr. Johnson, Dr. Trofa, Dr. Saltzman, and Ms. Muña.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jul 7;92(7):1627-34
pubmed: 20595569
JSES Open Access. 2018 Feb 01;2(1):8-12
pubmed: 30675560
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Sep-Oct;12(5):427-30
pubmed: 14564261
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1102-7
pubmed: 21719318
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Mar;28(3):407-414
pubmed: 30771825
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;14(5):492-6
pubmed: 16194740
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87 Suppl 2:1-8
pubmed: 16326718
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988 Oct;70(9):1308-11
pubmed: 3182884
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995 Nov-Dec;4(6):416-8
pubmed: 8665285
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Apr;25(4):304-313
pubmed: 28234638
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Apr;75(4):492-7
pubmed: 8478377
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1603-1608
pubmed: 28595948
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Dec 19;94(24):2239-46
pubmed: 23318614
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6):1082-1090
pubmed: 30723032
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Aug;87(8):1739-45
pubmed: 16085613
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Feb;(419):46-50
pubmed: 15021130
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88 Suppl 1 Pt 2:170-7
pubmed: 16951090
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Sep;23(9):1309-17
pubmed: 24618191
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jun;87(6):1229-40
pubmed: 15930531
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Dec;474(12):2672-2681
pubmed: 27392769
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2017 Mar/Apr;46(2):E131-E138
pubmed: 28437503
Am J Sports Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;24(5):589-93
pubmed: 8883677
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Sep;23(9):1318-26
pubmed: 24618196
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Aug;21(8):1087-95
pubmed: 21982350
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Jan-Feb;12(1):29-34
pubmed: 12610483
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Dec;25(12):1918-1924
pubmed: 27727055
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Oct;28(10):1942-1947
pubmed: 31078408