Comparison of Functional Outcomes and Complications of Inlay and Onlay Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Neer Type 4 Proximal Humerus Fractures and Cuff Tear Arthropathy: A Multicentric Study.

Complications Cuff tear arthropathy Functional outcomes Inlay humeral component Neer Type 4 fractures Onlay humeral component Reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Journal

Indian journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0019-5413
Titre abrégé: Indian J Orthop
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0137736

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 09 07 2023
accepted: 10 12 2023
pmc-release: 23 01 2025
medline: 1 3 2024
pubmed: 1 3 2024
entrez: 1 3 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted with the objective of comparing the outcomes and complications between inlay and onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients presenting Neer Type 4 proximal humerus fractures and cuff tear arthropathy. The primary aim of this investigation was to assess and juxtapose the clinical as well as functional outcomes of individuals who underwent onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty with those who underwent inlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, involving patients who had undergone reverse shoulder arthroplasty between the period of 2016 and 2022. The study divided the population into two groups: Group A received inlay humeral components, while Group B received onlay humeral components. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant scores. Range of motion, infection, periprosthetic fractures, and nerve injuries were also assessed. The study included 67 patients in Group A and 62 patients in Group B. Group A had significantly better functional outcomes, as indicated by higher ASES and Constant scores ( Inlay humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for Neer Type 4 fractures and cuff tear arthropathy resulted in better functional outcomes, increased range of motion, and lower incidence of periprosthetic fractures compared to onlay components. Onlay components showed potential advantages in reducing instability rates. Further studies with larger samples and standardized protocols are needed to confirm these findings.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
This multicenter retrospective study was conducted with the objective of comparing the outcomes and complications between inlay and onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients presenting Neer Type 4 proximal humerus fractures and cuff tear arthropathy. The primary aim of this investigation was to assess and juxtapose the clinical as well as functional outcomes of individuals who underwent onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty with those who underwent inlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Methods UNASSIGNED
A retrospective cohort study was conducted, involving patients who had undergone reverse shoulder arthroplasty between the period of 2016 and 2022. The study divided the population into two groups: Group A received inlay humeral components, while Group B received onlay humeral components. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant scores. Range of motion, infection, periprosthetic fractures, and nerve injuries were also assessed.
Results UNASSIGNED
The study included 67 patients in Group A and 62 patients in Group B. Group A had significantly better functional outcomes, as indicated by higher ASES and Constant scores (
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Inlay humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for Neer Type 4 fractures and cuff tear arthropathy resulted in better functional outcomes, increased range of motion, and lower incidence of periprosthetic fractures compared to onlay components. Onlay components showed potential advantages in reducing instability rates. Further studies with larger samples and standardized protocols are needed to confirm these findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38425832
doi: 10.1007/s43465-023-01084-1
pii: 1084
pmc: PMC10899121
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

263-270

Informations de copyright

© Indian Orthopaedics Association 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of InterestThe authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Auteurs

Sinan Kahraman (S)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Demiroglu Bilim University, Buyukdere Cd. No: 120, Sisli, 34394 Istanbul, Turkey.

Bulent Karslioglu (B)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Prof. Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Health Sciences University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Yunus Imren (Y)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Health Sciences University Baltalimani Metin Sabanci Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Ahmet Keskin (A)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Health Sciences University Baltalimani Metin Sabanci Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Kerem Bilsel (K)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.

Suleyman Semih Dedeoglu (SS)

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Health Sciences University Baltalimani Metin Sabanci Bone Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Classifications MeSH