European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
What is the middle term survival of reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A retrospective observational registry-based study.
Наблюдательное 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.
Di Martino Alberto, Pederiva Davide, Bordini Barbara, Brunello Matteo, Tassinari Leonardo, Rossomando Valentino, Faldini Cesare
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has increased over the last decade. Like any other implant it is associated with complications sometimes leading to revision. We carried out a registry-based study in order to find possible risk factors associated with the need of revision surgery.
METHODS: The RIPO registry was analyzed from July 2008 to December 2018 collecting available data. Two groups (degenerative or fracture) were formed and compared to determine possible risk factors difference in revision surgery.
RESULTS: A total of 7,966 shoulder prosthesis were implanted. There was a 1.5% intra or peri-operative complication rate. The revision rate was 4.0% at a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. A total of 3,073 reverse total shoulder prosthesis were implanted and available for follow-up. An increase of revision rate (the most frequent causes being aseptic loosening, infection and instability) was found in patients younger than 65 years and in male patients. Two groups were then formed on the basis of the primary diagnosis: osteoarthritis and proximal humerus fracture. Comparison between the two groups showed an increase in instability requiring revision in the fracture group.
CONCLUSION: Reverse shoulder prosthesis is a valid treatment option both in the elective and in the trauma settings, but young and male patients should be informed of the inherently increased risk of revision and prosthesis used in the fracture setting should be evaluated more thoroughly to prevent instability.
METHODS: The RIPO registry was analyzed from July 2008 to December 2018 collecting available data. Two groups (degenerative or fracture) were formed and compared to determine possible risk factors difference in revision surgery.
RESULTS: A total of 7,966 shoulder prosthesis were implanted. There was a 1.5% intra or peri-operative complication rate. The revision rate was 4.0% at a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. A total of 3,073 reverse total shoulder prosthesis were implanted and available for follow-up. An increase of revision rate (the most frequent causes being aseptic loosening, infection and instability) was found in patients younger than 65 years and in male patients. Two groups were then formed on the basis of the primary diagnosis: osteoarthritis and proximal humerus fracture. Comparison between the two groups showed an increase in instability requiring revision in the fracture group.
CONCLUSION: Reverse shoulder prosthesis is a valid treatment option both in the elective and in the trauma settings, but young and male patients should be informed of the inherently increased risk of revision and prosthesis used in the fracture setting should be evaluated more thoroughly to prevent instability.