Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR · 2017
Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 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.
Soudy K, Szymanski C, Lalanne C, Bourgault C, Thiounn A, Cotten A, Maynou C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess clinical and computed-tomography (CT) outcomes at least 2 years after humeral head resurfacing to treat concentric gleno-humeral osteoarthritis.
HYPOTHESIS: Humeral head resurfacing provides similar outcomes to those achieved with stemmed humeral head implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study included 40 Copeland™ and 65 Aequalis™ humeral resurfacing heads implanted between 2004 and 2012. Mean patient age at diagnosis was 64 years. The diagnoses were osteoarthritis with an intact (68%) or torn (21%) rotator cuff, avascular necrosis (5%), osteoarthritis complicating chronic instability (3%), post-traumatic osteoarthritis (2%), and chronic inflammatory joint disease (1%). Validated clinical scores, radiographs, and CT before surgery and at last follow-up were compared.
RESULTS: During the mean follow-up of 56 months, complications occurred in 24 implants. Revision surgery with reverse shoulder replacement was required in 18 cases, after a mean of 43.6 months, to treat glenoid wear or a rotator cuff tear. At last follow-up, for the implants that did not require revision surgery, the mean Constant score was 64/100. The implants had a mean varus of 5° and mean retroversion of -13.3°. The mean increase in glenoid cavity depth was 2.4mm. Mean increases in medial and lateral humeral offset were 1.9mm and 2.7mm, respectively. Pre-operative factors significantly associated with failure were rotator cuff tear (P=0.017) and glenoid erosion (P=0.001).
DISCUSSION: We found a high failure rate related to glenoid wear or progressive rotator-cuff impairment, although CT showed no evidence of implant malposition or overstuffing. Previous studies of stemmed humeral head implants showed better outcomes. Given the low medium-term prosthesis survival rate, we now reserve humeral head resurfacing for concentric osteoarthritis without glenoid erosions or rotator cuff damage.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.
HYPOTHESIS: Humeral head resurfacing provides similar outcomes to those achieved with stemmed humeral head implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study included 40 Copeland™ and 65 Aequalis™ humeral resurfacing heads implanted between 2004 and 2012. Mean patient age at diagnosis was 64 years. The diagnoses were osteoarthritis with an intact (68%) or torn (21%) rotator cuff, avascular necrosis (5%), osteoarthritis complicating chronic instability (3%), post-traumatic osteoarthritis (2%), and chronic inflammatory joint disease (1%). Validated clinical scores, radiographs, and CT before surgery and at last follow-up were compared.
RESULTS: During the mean follow-up of 56 months, complications occurred in 24 implants. Revision surgery with reverse shoulder replacement was required in 18 cases, after a mean of 43.6 months, to treat glenoid wear or a rotator cuff tear. At last follow-up, for the implants that did not require revision surgery, the mean Constant score was 64/100. The implants had a mean varus of 5° and mean retroversion of -13.3°. The mean increase in glenoid cavity depth was 2.4mm. Mean increases in medial and lateral humeral offset were 1.9mm and 2.7mm, respectively. Pre-operative factors significantly associated with failure were rotator cuff tear (P=0.017) and glenoid erosion (P=0.001).
DISCUSSION: We found a high failure rate related to glenoid wear or progressive rotator-cuff impairment, although CT showed no evidence of implant malposition or overstuffing. Previous studies of stemmed humeral head implants showed better outcomes. Given the low medium-term prosthesis survival rate, we now reserve humeral head resurfacing for concentric osteoarthritis without glenoid erosions or rotator cuff damage.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, ReplacementFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlenoid CavityHumansHumeral HeadJoint InstabilityJoint ProsthesisMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritisOsteonecrosisPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesRotator Cuff InjuriesShoulder JointShoulder ProsthesisTomography, X-Ray Computed