Scapulothoracic orientation has a significant influence on the clinical outcome after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

clinical outcome posture types reverse total shoulder arthroplasty scapulothoracic orientation

Journal

Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
ISSN: 1532-6500
Titre abrégé: J Shoulder Elbow Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9206499

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 14 10 2023
revised: 01 02 2024
accepted: 03 02 2024
medline: 28 3 2024
pubmed: 28 3 2024
entrez: 27 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Computer simulation has indicated a significant effect of scapulothoracic orientation and posture on range of motion (ROM) after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). We analyzed this putative effect on the clinical and radiological outcome post-RTSA. We retrospectively assessed 2-year follow-up data of RTSA patients treated at our clinic between 2008 and 2019. Patients were categorized into posture types A, B, and C based on an established method using scapular internal rotation on preoperative cross-sectional imaging. We compared differences in clinical ROM, pain, Subjective Shoulder Value, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), quality of life (EQ5D5L utility index) and radiological outcomes between posture types using linear regression analyses. Of 681 included patients, 225 had type A posture, 326 type B and 130 type C. Baseline group characteristics were comparable, although the type C group had a higher proportion of females (60% [A]; 64% [B]; 80% [C]) with lower abduction strength (0.7 kg [A]; 0.6 kg [B]; 0.3 kg [C]) and a slightly higher proportion with a Grammont design RTSA (41% [A]; 48% [B]; 54% [C]). There were significant adjusted differences in mean (±standard deviation) active flexion (A: 137±21°; B: 136±20°; C: 131±19°) and passive flexion (A: 140±19°; B: 138±19°; C: 134±18°), active (A: 127±26°; B: 125±26°; C: 117±27°) and passive abduction (A: 129±24°; B: 128±25°; C: 121±25°), SPADI (A: 81±18; B: 79±20; C: 73±23) and pain (A: 1.2±1.7; B: 1.6±2.2; C: 1.8±2.4) between posture types at 2 years (p≤0.035). A higher distalization shoulder angle was associated with better abduction in type C patients (p=0.016). Type C patients showed a trend towards a higher complication rate (3.9% vs 1.1% [A]; 3.2% [B]) (p=0.067). Type C posture influences the 2-year clinical outcome of RTSA patients in terms of worse flexion, abduction, SPADI and pain. Scapulothoracic orientation and posture should be considered during the patient selection process, preoperative planning and implantation of a RTSA.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Computer simulation has indicated a significant effect of scapulothoracic orientation and posture on range of motion (ROM) after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). We analyzed this putative effect on the clinical and radiological outcome post-RTSA.
METHODS METHODS
We retrospectively assessed 2-year follow-up data of RTSA patients treated at our clinic between 2008 and 2019. Patients were categorized into posture types A, B, and C based on an established method using scapular internal rotation on preoperative cross-sectional imaging. We compared differences in clinical ROM, pain, Subjective Shoulder Value, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), quality of life (EQ5D5L utility index) and radiological outcomes between posture types using linear regression analyses.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 681 included patients, 225 had type A posture, 326 type B and 130 type C. Baseline group characteristics were comparable, although the type C group had a higher proportion of females (60% [A]; 64% [B]; 80% [C]) with lower abduction strength (0.7 kg [A]; 0.6 kg [B]; 0.3 kg [C]) and a slightly higher proportion with a Grammont design RTSA (41% [A]; 48% [B]; 54% [C]). There were significant adjusted differences in mean (±standard deviation) active flexion (A: 137±21°; B: 136±20°; C: 131±19°) and passive flexion (A: 140±19°; B: 138±19°; C: 134±18°), active (A: 127±26°; B: 125±26°; C: 117±27°) and passive abduction (A: 129±24°; B: 128±25°; C: 121±25°), SPADI (A: 81±18; B: 79±20; C: 73±23) and pain (A: 1.2±1.7; B: 1.6±2.2; C: 1.8±2.4) between posture types at 2 years (p≤0.035). A higher distalization shoulder angle was associated with better abduction in type C patients (p=0.016). Type C patients showed a trend towards a higher complication rate (3.9% vs 1.1% [A]; 3.2% [B]) (p=0.067).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Type C posture influences the 2-year clinical outcome of RTSA patients in terms of worse flexion, abduction, SPADI and pain. Scapulothoracic orientation and posture should be considered during the patient selection process, preoperative planning and implantation of a RTSA.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38537767
pii: S1058-2746(24)00218-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.02.018
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Philipp Moroder (P)

Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.

Paul Siegert (P)

Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland; Orthopaedic Hospital Speising, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: paul.siegert@oss.at.

Ismael Coifman (I)

Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.

Katja Rüttershoff (K)

Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Giovanni Spagna (G)

Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.

Alessandra Scaini (A)

Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.

Beatrice Weber (B)

Research and Development, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.

Tim Schneller (T)

Research and Development, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.

Markus Scheibel (M)

Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland; Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Laurent Audigé (L)

Research and Development, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland; University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH