Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022
Long-term outcomes after humeral head replacement and total shoulder replacement for osteonecrosis of the humeral head: a mean follow-up of 8 years.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Rhee Sung-Min, Kim Du-Han, Rhee Yong Girl, Cho Chul-Hyun
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and complications after humeral head replacement (HHR) and total shoulder replacement (TSR) in patients with osteonecrosis of the humeral head (ONHH).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients who underwent shoulder replacement (13 HHRs and 13 TSRs) for nontraumatic ONHH were included. The mean follow-up period was 96.4 months. The visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, and range of motion (ROM) at the final follow-up evaluation were used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: The mean VAS pain score, UCLA score, and ASES score showed significant improvement from 6.3, 11.6, and 35.0 before surgery to 2.2, 28.9, and 82.6 at the final follow-up evaluation (all p < 0.001). No significant differences regarding all clinical scores and ROMs were observed between the HHR group and the TSR group, except that a greater abduction angle was observed in the HHR group compared with the TSR group (123.1° versus 96.9°, p = 0.014). Two patients in the TSR group underwent multiple reoperations due to periprosthetic joint infection. No revision surgeries were performed for glenoid erosion following HHR or aseptic glenoid loosening following TSR.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study showed satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes with implant longevity for both HHR and TSR in patients with nontraumatic ONHH. The HHR group had a greater abduction angle compared with the TSR group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients who underwent shoulder replacement (13 HHRs and 13 TSRs) for nontraumatic ONHH were included. The mean follow-up period was 96.4 months. The visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, and range of motion (ROM) at the final follow-up evaluation were used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: The mean VAS pain score, UCLA score, and ASES score showed significant improvement from 6.3, 11.6, and 35.0 before surgery to 2.2, 28.9, and 82.6 at the final follow-up evaluation (all p < 0.001). No significant differences regarding all clinical scores and ROMs were observed between the HHR group and the TSR group, except that a greater abduction angle was observed in the HHR group compared with the TSR group (123.1° versus 96.9°, p = 0.014). Two patients in the TSR group underwent multiple reoperations due to periprosthetic joint infection. No revision surgeries were performed for glenoid erosion following HHR or aseptic glenoid loosening following TSR.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study showed satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes with implant longevity for both HHR and TSR in patients with nontraumatic ONHH. The HHR group had a greater abduction angle compared with the TSR group.