Short to Early-Mid Term Clinical Outcomes and Survival of Pyrocarbon Shoulder Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
hemi-arthroplasty
pyrolitic carbon
shoulder hemi-arthroplasty
shoulder replacement
Journal
Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty
ISSN: 2471-5492
Titre abrégé: J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763114
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
30
09
2022
revised:
18
12
2022
accepted:
05
01
2023
entrez:
30
1
2023
pubmed:
31
1
2023
medline:
31
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The appropriate surgical treatment option for young and active patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for arthritis remains questionable. Pyrolitic carbon (pyrocarbon) has been shown to improve implant longevity and decrease wear when in contact with cartilage or bone. The present systematic review aimed to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes as well as the survivorship of pyrocarbon shoulder implants. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. A systematic search was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. All the studies dealing with the use of pyrolitic shoulder implants were pooled, data of interest were extracted and statistically analyzed through meta-analysis. A total of 9 studies were included for a total of 477 shoulders treated. The overall mean rate of survival of the implants was 93.4 ± 5.8% and 80% ± 26.5% at 2 years and final follow up, respectively, while resulting 82.4% ± 22.1% and 92.3% ± 3.5% for PISA (pyrocarbon interposition shoulder arthroplasty) and hemi-arthroplasty/hemi-resurfacing, respectively. Pyrolitic carbon shoulder implants showed good survivorship and clinical outcomes at an early to early-midterm follow-up. More studies and better-designed trials are needed in order to enrich the evidence on long-term outcomes and comparison with other shoulder replacement options for young and active patients. IV.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The appropriate surgical treatment option for young and active patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for arthritis remains questionable. Pyrolitic carbon (pyrocarbon) has been shown to improve implant longevity and decrease wear when in contact with cartilage or bone. The present systematic review aimed to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes as well as the survivorship of pyrocarbon shoulder implants.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. A systematic search was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. All the studies dealing with the use of pyrolitic shoulder implants were pooled, data of interest were extracted and statistically analyzed through meta-analysis.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 9 studies were included for a total of 477 shoulders treated. The overall mean rate of survival of the implants was 93.4 ± 5.8% and 80% ± 26.5% at 2 years and final follow up, respectively, while resulting 82.4% ± 22.1% and 92.3% ± 3.5% for PISA (pyrocarbon interposition shoulder arthroplasty) and hemi-arthroplasty/hemi-resurfacing, respectively.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Pyrolitic carbon shoulder implants showed good survivorship and clinical outcomes at an early to early-midterm follow-up. More studies and better-designed trials are needed in order to enrich the evidence on long-term outcomes and comparison with other shoulder replacement options for young and active patients.
Level of Evidence
UNASSIGNED
IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36714423
doi: 10.1177/24715492231152143
pii: 10.1177_24715492231152143
pmc: PMC9875319
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
24715492231152143Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989 Mar;71(2):189-97
pubmed: 2925733
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jun;25(6):920-6
pubmed: 26853758
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Nov-Dec;13(6):604-13
pubmed: 15570228
Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1129-1135
pubmed: 29273836
J Wrist Surg. 2012 Nov;1(2):159-64
pubmed: 24179721
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Nov 21;94(22):e164
pubmed: 23172331
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1184-90
pubmed: 21803608
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 May-Jun;12(3):207-13
pubmed: 12851570
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Jun;80(6):860-7
pubmed: 9655104
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Apr;31(4):755-762
pubmed: 34555523
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jan;29(1):e1-e10
pubmed: 31451348
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Feb;107(1):102756
pubmed: 33316450
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Feb;91(2):419-24
pubmed: 19181986
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2019 Nov;44(9):887-897
pubmed: 31483683
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Sep;28(9):1666-1673
pubmed: 31202630
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015 Feb;44(2):68-72
pubmed: 25658074
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Apr;80(4):464-73
pubmed: 9563375
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015 May;23(5):317-26
pubmed: 25829449
J Arthroplasty. 1990 Dec;5(4):329-36
pubmed: 2290089
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Jan;31(1):113-122
pubmed: 34280573
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Oct;25(10):715-723
pubmed: 28953086
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Sep;14(6):756-60
pubmed: 10512449
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Sep;22(9):1199-208
pubmed: 23385083
Int Orthop. 2016 Jul;40(7):1465-71
pubmed: 26493390
Shoulder Elbow. 2020 Dec;12(1 Suppl):11-22
pubmed: 33343712
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571