Effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary and secondary fracture care: mid-term outcomes in a single-centre experience.
Complex shoulder fracture care
Primary fracture reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Primary fracture treatment
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Salvage procedure
Secondary fracture reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Secondary fracture treatment
Tubercle bone stock healing
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jan 2021
08 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
22
08
2020
accepted:
21
12
2020
entrez:
9
1
2021
pubmed:
10
1
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as a treatment option in complex proximal humeral fractures, has significantly extended the surgical armamentarium. The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term outcome following fracture RSA in acute or sequelae, as well as salvage procedures. It was hypothesized that revision RSA (SRSA) leads to similar mid-term results as primary fracture treatment by RSA (PRSA). This retrospective study describes the radiological and clinical mid-term outcomes in a standardized single-centre and Inlay design. Patients who underwent RSA in fracture care between 2008 and 2017 were included (minimum follow-up: 2 years, minimum age: 60 years). The assessment tools used for functional findings were range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale, absolute (CS) plus normative Constant Score, QuickDASH, and Subjective Shoulder Value. All adverse events as well as the radiological results and their clinical correlations were statistically analysed (using p < .05and 95% confidence intervals). Following fracture RSA, 68 patients were included (mean age: 72.5 years, mean follow-up: 46 months). Forty-two underwent primary RSA (PRSA), and 26 underwent revision RSA (SRSA). Adverse advents were observed in 13% (n = 9/68). No statistically significant results were found for the scores of the PRSA and SRSA groups, while the failed osteosynthesis SRSA subgroup obtained statistically significantly negative values for ROM subzones (flexion: p = .020, abduction: p = .020). Decreased instances of tubercle healing were observed for the in PRSA group relative to the SRSA group (p = .006). The absence of bony healing of the tubercles was related to significant negative clinical and subjective outcomes (all scores: p < .05, external rotation: p= .019). Significant postoperative improvements were evaluated in the SRSA group (CS: 23 to 56 at mean, p = .001), the time from index surgery to operative revision revealed no associations in functional findings. RSA is an effective option in severe shoulder fracture management with predictable results for salvage as well as first-line treatment. Promising mid-term functional results, reasonable implant survival rates, and high patient satisfaction can be achieved. Level III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as a treatment option in complex proximal humeral fractures, has significantly extended the surgical armamentarium. The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term outcome following fracture RSA in acute or sequelae, as well as salvage procedures. It was hypothesized that revision RSA (SRSA) leads to similar mid-term results as primary fracture treatment by RSA (PRSA).
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study describes the radiological and clinical mid-term outcomes in a standardized single-centre and Inlay design. Patients who underwent RSA in fracture care between 2008 and 2017 were included (minimum follow-up: 2 years, minimum age: 60 years). The assessment tools used for functional findings were range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale, absolute (CS) plus normative Constant Score, QuickDASH, and Subjective Shoulder Value. All adverse events as well as the radiological results and their clinical correlations were statistically analysed (using p < .05and 95% confidence intervals).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Following fracture RSA, 68 patients were included (mean age: 72.5 years, mean follow-up: 46 months). Forty-two underwent primary RSA (PRSA), and 26 underwent revision RSA (SRSA). Adverse advents were observed in 13% (n = 9/68). No statistically significant results were found for the scores of the PRSA and SRSA groups, while the failed osteosynthesis SRSA subgroup obtained statistically significantly negative values for ROM subzones (flexion: p = .020, abduction: p = .020). Decreased instances of tubercle healing were observed for the in PRSA group relative to the SRSA group (p = .006). The absence of bony healing of the tubercles was related to significant negative clinical and subjective outcomes (all scores: p < .05, external rotation: p= .019). Significant postoperative improvements were evaluated in the SRSA group (CS: 23 to 56 at mean, p = .001), the time from index surgery to operative revision revealed no associations in functional findings.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RSA is an effective option in severe shoulder fracture management with predictable results for salvage as well as first-line treatment. Promising mid-term functional results, reasonable implant survival rates, and high patient satisfaction can be achieved.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33419418
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03903-0
pii: 10.1186/s12891-020-03903-0
pmc: PMC7792308
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
48Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Aug;23(8):1232-9
pubmed: 24438984
Musculoskelet Surg. 2015 Apr;99(1):39-44
pubmed: 24917462
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Mar-Apr;13(2):191-5
pubmed: 14997098
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004 Feb;90(1):16-25
pubmed: 14967999
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jul-Aug;10(4):299-308
pubmed: 11517358
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(10):698-704
pubmed: 18978545
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
Musculoskelet Surg. 2014 Apr;98 Suppl 1:27-33
pubmed: 24659196
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2432-9
pubmed: 21213090
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jul;19(7):439-49
pubmed: 21724923
Musculoskelet Surg. 2014 Apr;98 Suppl 1:19-25
pubmed: 24659199
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 May;94(5):577-83
pubmed: 22529074
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 May;102(3):279-85
pubmed: 26993853
Acta Orthop Scand. 1986 Aug;57(4):320-3
pubmed: 3788494
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015 Jan-Mar;9(1):24-31
pubmed: 25709242
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jul;26(7):1253-1261
pubmed: 28111179
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015 Apr-Jun;9(2):60-7
pubmed: 25937717
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 May;87(5):1038-46
pubmed: 15866967
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Apr;86(3):388-95
pubmed: 15125127
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2425-31
pubmed: 21210311
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1077-89
pubmed: 5455339
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(3):72-80
pubmed: 28461931
Musculoskelet Surg. 2015 Sep;99 Suppl 1:S17-23
pubmed: 25962807
EFORT Open Rev. 2018 Feb 28;3(2):58-69
pubmed: 29657846
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 May;25(5):e130-8
pubmed: 26895601
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000 Nov-Dec;8(6):373-82
pubmed: 11104401
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Jan;22(1):32-7
pubmed: 22652065
Int Orthop. 2015 Feb;39(2):343-8
pubmed: 25548128
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010;44(6):417-25
pubmed: 21358246
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1133-7
pubmed: 26897312
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jun;24(6):988-93
pubmed: 25725965
J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Sep 25;12(1):137
pubmed: 28946902
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Apr;23(4):e73-80
pubmed: 24406120
JSES Int. 2020 Jan 02;4(1):151-155
pubmed: 32195478
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92 Suppl 1 Pt 1:85-95
pubmed: 20194347
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1690-8
pubmed: 27090009
Int Orthop. 2015 Feb;39(2):349-54
pubmed: 25616730
Int Orthop. 2016 Sep;40(9):1919-25
pubmed: 27194158
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1478-83
pubmed: 22361717
Injury. 2018 Sep;49 Suppl 2:S22-S26
pubmed: 30219143
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Jul-Aug;11(4):389-400
pubmed: 12195260
Orthopedics. 1993 Jan;16(1):65-8
pubmed: 8421661
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2005 Feb;17(1):25-50
pubmed: 16007377
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jan;26(1):92-100
pubmed: 27521139
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):146-57
pubmed: 21134666
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Mar;28(3):e78-e91
pubmed: 30593437
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jan;93(1):57-61
pubmed: 21196544