Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2013
Revision arthroplasty with a hip-inspired computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing implant for glenoid-deficient shoulders.
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.
Uri Ofir, Beckles Verona, Falworth Mark, Higgs Deborah, Lambert Simon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Revision arthroplasty for failed post-traumatic humeral head replacement associated with rotator cuff and glenoid deficiency is challenging. Current surgical solutions are fraught with complications, and no best-practice strategy has been established. We hypothesized that the computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) shoulder (Stanmore Implants, Elstree, UK), a total shoulder design resembling a total hip prosthesis, can offer a reliable alternative in this surgically challenging subset of patients with rotator cuff deficiency and advanced glenoid bone loss.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients with failed post-traumatic humeral head replacement associated with rotator cuff and glenoid deficiency underwent revision with CAD/CAM shoulders between 2005 and 2010. Clinical data were collected prospectively and analyzed at a mean follow-up of 3 years.
RESULTS: After revision, the pain rating at rest (on a 0-10 numerical scale) decreased from 5.6 ± 1.3 to 1.1 ± 1.3 (P < .001) and pain during activity decreased from 7.4 ± 1.2 to 2.1 ± 1.8 (P < .001). The Oxford shoulder score improved from 47 ± 6 to 31 ± 9 (P < .001), and the subjective shoulder value (on a 0%-100% scale) improved from 22% ± 14% to 45% ± 18% (P < .001). Active shoulder range of motion was similar before and after revision. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients and included 1 infection, 2 periprosthetic fractures, 2 prosthetic dislocations, and 4 fixation screw fractures. No case of glenoid loosening occurred.
CONCLUSION: The CAD/CAM shoulder offers a reliable method of securing a glenoid component in shoulders with advanced glenoid deficiency and should be considered as an alternative to other surgical methods in these challenging cases. At 3 years' follow-up, pain and clinical scores improved significantly and no case of glenoid loosening occurred.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients with failed post-traumatic humeral head replacement associated with rotator cuff and glenoid deficiency underwent revision with CAD/CAM shoulders between 2005 and 2010. Clinical data were collected prospectively and analyzed at a mean follow-up of 3 years.
RESULTS: After revision, the pain rating at rest (on a 0-10 numerical scale) decreased from 5.6 ± 1.3 to 1.1 ± 1.3 (P < .001) and pain during activity decreased from 7.4 ± 1.2 to 2.1 ± 1.8 (P < .001). The Oxford shoulder score improved from 47 ± 6 to 31 ± 9 (P < .001), and the subjective shoulder value (on a 0%-100% scale) improved from 22% ± 14% to 45% ± 18% (P < .001). Active shoulder range of motion was similar before and after revision. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients and included 1 infection, 2 periprosthetic fractures, 2 prosthetic dislocations, and 4 fixation screw fractures. No case of glenoid loosening occurred.
CONCLUSION: The CAD/CAM shoulder offers a reliable method of securing a glenoid component in shoulders with advanced glenoid deficiency and should be considered as an alternative to other surgical methods in these challenging cases. At 3 years' follow-up, pain and clinical scores improved significantly and no case of glenoid loosening occurred.