Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2009
Revision shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of indications and outcomes.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sajadi Kaveh R, Kwon Young W, Zuckerman Joseph D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We reviewed all revision operations performed by a single surgeon on previous hemi- and total shoulder arthroplasties from November 1987 to March 2005.
METHOD: Thirty-five patients' charts were reviewed to determine the causes of failures. In addition, their outcomes after the revision surgery were analyzed.
RESULTS: Overall, results were satisfactory in 71% by Neer criteria at a mean follow-up of 27.6 months. Outcomes were related to reason for failure. When failure was because of glenoid erosion, loosening, or humeral loosening, the mean improvement in forward elevation (FE) (28.9 degrees ) and external rotation (ER) (16.1 degrees ) was significantly better (P=.024 FE; P=.000 ER) than when the failure was because of infection, soft-tissue problems, or pain of undetermined origin (FE=-5.6 degrees ; ER=-6.8 degrees ).Likewise, UCLA scores in the first group were significantly better than in the second group (P=.003). In the first group, 16/18 patients were satisfied, while in the second group only 4/17 were satisfied.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients whose revisions are because of glenoid erosion or component loosening can expect to have better outcomes than those whose revisions are performed for infection, instability, or other soft-tissue problems.
METHOD: Thirty-five patients' charts were reviewed to determine the causes of failures. In addition, their outcomes after the revision surgery were analyzed.
RESULTS: Overall, results were satisfactory in 71% by Neer criteria at a mean follow-up of 27.6 months. Outcomes were related to reason for failure. When failure was because of glenoid erosion, loosening, or humeral loosening, the mean improvement in forward elevation (FE) (28.9 degrees ) and external rotation (ER) (16.1 degrees ) was significantly better (P=.024 FE; P=.000 ER) than when the failure was because of infection, soft-tissue problems, or pain of undetermined origin (FE=-5.6 degrees ; ER=-6.8 degrees ).Likewise, UCLA scores in the first group were significantly better than in the second group (P=.003). In the first group, 16/18 patients were satisfied, while in the second group only 4/17 were satisfied.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients whose revisions are because of glenoid erosion or component loosening can expect to have better outcomes than those whose revisions are performed for infection, instability, or other soft-tissue problems.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalysis of VarianceArthroplasty, ReplacementCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJoint InstabilityJoint ProsthesisMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementProbabilityProsthesis FailureRange of Motion, ArticularReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentShoulder JointTreatment Outcome