Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2018
Outcomes of an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a contralateral reverse total 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, Padegimas Eric M, Abboud Joseph A, Getz Charles L, Lazarus Mark D, Ramsey Matthew L, Williams Gerald R, Horneff John G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is common for patients to require staged bilateral shoulder arthroplasties. There is a unique cohort of patients who require an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and a contralateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study compared the outcomes of patients with a TSA in 1 shoulder and an RSA in the contralateral shoulder.
METHODS: Our institutional database was queried to identify all patients with a TSA and a contralateral RSA. Data collection included patient demographics, preoperative and latest follow-up shoulder range of motion, radiographic analysis, and postoperative complications. Identified patients were assessed at follow-up visits or contacted by phone for functional outcome scores.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was statistically significant greater internal rotation in the TSA shoulder (P= .044) but no significant difference in forward elevation (P = .573) or external rotation (P= .368). There was no radiographic evidence of humeral or glenoid component loosening of any arthroplasty implants. There were no significant differences between TSA and RSA shoulders for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (P= .381), Simple Shoulder Test (P = .352), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (P = .709), and visual analog scale satisfaction (P= .448) or pain scores (P= .305). Thirteen patients (68.4%) preferred the RSA side, 1 patient (5.3%; z = 4.04, P < .001) patient preferred the TSA side, and 5 patients expressed no preference.
CONCLUSION: Despite known limitations and differences between TSA and RSA designs, patients who have received both implants are highly satisfied with both. The only parameter in which the TSA had superior outcomes was internal rotation.
METHODS: Our institutional database was queried to identify all patients with a TSA and a contralateral RSA. Data collection included patient demographics, preoperative and latest follow-up shoulder range of motion, radiographic analysis, and postoperative complications. Identified patients were assessed at follow-up visits or contacted by phone for functional outcome scores.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was statistically significant greater internal rotation in the TSA shoulder (P= .044) but no significant difference in forward elevation (P = .573) or external rotation (P= .368). There was no radiographic evidence of humeral or glenoid component loosening of any arthroplasty implants. There were no significant differences between TSA and RSA shoulders for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (P= .381), Simple Shoulder Test (P = .352), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (P = .709), and visual analog scale satisfaction (P= .448) or pain scores (P= .305). Thirteen patients (68.4%) preferred the RSA side, 1 patient (5.3%; z = 4.04, P < .001) patient preferred the TSA side, and 5 patients expressed no preference.
CONCLUSION: Despite known limitations and differences between TSA and RSA designs, patients who have received both implants are highly satisfied with both. The only parameter in which the TSA had superior outcomes was internal rotation.