Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2010
Anatomic and reverse shoulder prostheses in fracture sequelae of the humeral head.
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.
Kılıç Mustafa, Berth Alexander, Blatter Georges, Fuhrmann Uwe, Gebhardt Katja, Rott Olaf, Zenz Peter, Irlenbusch Ulrich
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Arthroplasty for the proximal humerus problems secondary to fractures is troublesome, because of necrosis of the tubercles and the resulting insufficiency of the rotator cuff. The aim of this study was to investigate whether better results can be achieved with the differential use of anatomic and reverse shoulder prostheses, in comparison to the preoperative status.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients with secondary fracture prostheses due to sequelae of fractures of the humeral head were followed. Anatomic prostheses were implanted in 36 cases (fracture sequelae types 1 and 2 according to Boileau), and reversed prostheses were implanted in 19 cases (fracture sequelae types 3 and 4).
RESULTS: The mean scores of the patients improved from 19 to 68 points (anatomic prosthesis) for fracture sequelae types 1 and 2, and from 9 to 47.5 points (reverse prosthesis) for fracture sequelae types 3 and 4.
CONCLUSION: The differential use of anatomic and reversed shoulder prostheses in secondary fracture treatment leads to an improvement in postoperative results. In fracture sequelae types 1 and 2, the anatomic prosthesis is a better choice. However, in fracture sequelae types 3 and 4 with severe deformities, the reversed prosthesis is clearly superior to the anatomic prosthesis.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients with secondary fracture prostheses due to sequelae of fractures of the humeral head were followed. Anatomic prostheses were implanted in 36 cases (fracture sequelae types 1 and 2 according to Boileau), and reversed prostheses were implanted in 19 cases (fracture sequelae types 3 and 4).
RESULTS: The mean scores of the patients improved from 19 to 68 points (anatomic prosthesis) for fracture sequelae types 1 and 2, and from 9 to 47.5 points (reverse prosthesis) for fracture sequelae types 3 and 4.
CONCLUSION: The differential use of anatomic and reversed shoulder prostheses in secondary fracture treatment leads to an improvement in postoperative results. In fracture sequelae types 1 and 2, the anatomic prosthesis is a better choice. However, in fracture sequelae types 3 and 4 with severe deformities, the reversed prosthesis is clearly superior to the anatomic prosthesis.