Shoulder & elbow · 2024
Management of periprosthetic humerus fractures after shoulder arthroplasty.
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.
Cox Ryan M, Mandava Nikhil, Vaughan Alayna, Ramsey Matthew L, Getz Charles L, Namdari Surena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze time to fracture union, complications, and outcomes of postoperative periprosthetic humerus fractures after primary shoulder arthroplasty.
METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who sustained a postoperative periprosthetic humerus fracture after primary shoulder arthroplasty at a single institution. Fractures were classified according to the Worland Classification system. Both non-operatively and operatively treated patients were included. The primary study outcomes were time to union and complications.
RESULTS: There were 46 patients who sustained a postoperative periprosthetic humerus fracture after primary shoulder arthroplasty, 18 were treated non-operatively and 28 were treated operatively. There were seven (25%) patients who underwent surgery after failed non-operative management. There was only one (2.2%) patient who had a nonunion at final follow-up. The average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score, Single Assessment Numeral Evaluation, and visual analog scale pain scores were 73.5 ± 22.7, 66.5 ± 23.1, and 2.2 ± 2.4, respectively.
CONCLUSION: There was a high rate of union for both non-operatively and operatively treated periprosthetic fractures. However, there was a high rate of cross-over from non-operative to operative treatment and a high complication rate for both cohorts. For properly indicated patients, non-operative and operative treatment can result in satisfactory patient outcomes.
METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who sustained a postoperative periprosthetic humerus fracture after primary shoulder arthroplasty at a single institution. Fractures were classified according to the Worland Classification system. Both non-operatively and operatively treated patients were included. The primary study outcomes were time to union and complications.
RESULTS: There were 46 patients who sustained a postoperative periprosthetic humerus fracture after primary shoulder arthroplasty, 18 were treated non-operatively and 28 were treated operatively. There were seven (25%) patients who underwent surgery after failed non-operative management. There was only one (2.2%) patient who had a nonunion at final follow-up. The average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score, Single Assessment Numeral Evaluation, and visual analog scale pain scores were 73.5 ± 22.7, 66.5 ± 23.1, and 2.2 ± 2.4, respectively.
CONCLUSION: There was a high rate of union for both non-operatively and operatively treated periprosthetic fractures. However, there was a high rate of cross-over from non-operative to operative treatment and a high complication rate for both cohorts. For properly indicated patients, non-operative and operative treatment can result in satisfactory patient outcomes.