Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2020
Short-term evaluation of humeral stress shielding following reverse shoulder arthroplasty using press-fit fixation compared with cemented fixation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Denard Patrick J, Haidamous Georges, Gobezie Reuben, Romeo Anthony A, Lederman Evan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and humeral stress shielding of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) placed with either cement or press-fit fixation. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in functional outcomes or stress shielding.
METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective review of primary RSAs performed with standard-length stems. The stems were identical in geometry and coating with the only variable being whether the stems were secured with cement or by a press-fit technique. The functional outcomes and radiographs of 93 press-fit stems and 26 cemented stems were reviewed at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: Significant improvements were noted in all ranges of motion and functional outcomes from baseline (P < .001), but no difference was found between the groups (P > .05). Calcar osteolysis was seen in 43% of press-fit and 58% of cemented stems (P = .266). Proximal lateral stress shielding was more common in the press-fit group (68%) than in the cemented group (25%) (P = .045). Adaptive changes were considered low in 97% of press-fit stems, and there were no cases of tuberosity resorption. No evidence of loosening or humeral component shift was noted in either group.
CONCLUSION: At short-term follow-up, no differences in functional outcomes or stem loosening were found between press-fit fixation and cemented fixation of an RSA humeral stem. Proximal stress shielding was more common with press-fit fixation with the stem in this study, but the overall changes were considered low in 97% of cases. Further study is needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term differences regarding stress shielding.
METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective review of primary RSAs performed with standard-length stems. The stems were identical in geometry and coating with the only variable being whether the stems were secured with cement or by a press-fit technique. The functional outcomes and radiographs of 93 press-fit stems and 26 cemented stems were reviewed at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: Significant improvements were noted in all ranges of motion and functional outcomes from baseline (P < .001), but no difference was found between the groups (P > .05). Calcar osteolysis was seen in 43% of press-fit and 58% of cemented stems (P = .266). Proximal lateral stress shielding was more common in the press-fit group (68%) than in the cemented group (25%) (P = .045). Adaptive changes were considered low in 97% of press-fit stems, and there were no cases of tuberosity resorption. No evidence of loosening or humeral component shift was noted in either group.
CONCLUSION: At short-term follow-up, no differences in functional outcomes or stem loosening were found between press-fit fixation and cemented fixation of an RSA humeral stem. Proximal stress shielding was more common with press-fit fixation with the stem in this study, but the overall changes were considered low in 97% of cases. Further study is needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term differences regarding stress shielding.