Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2022
Impact of sickle cell disease in shoulder arthroplasty: a matched cohort analysis.
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.
Marigi Erick M, Triplet Jacob J, Alder Kareme D, Cheema Adnan, Sperling John W, Sanchez-Sotelo Joaquin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic disorder of abnormal hemoglobin synthesis that is known to cause glenohumeral avascular necrosis (AVN). Little has been published on the use of shoulder arthroplasty (SA) for the treatment of glenohumeral AVN in SCD. We report on the clinical and radiographic results and postoperative complications following SA in the patient cohort.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed identifying 17 primary SAs (9 hemiarthroplasties, 7 anatomic total SAs, and 1 reverse total SA) in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SCD and a minimum of 2-year follow-up. This cohort was matched (1:2) according to age, sex, body mass index, type of prosthesis, and year of surgery with patients who had undergone hemiarthroplasty or total SA for osteoarthritis (OA) or reverse total SA for cuff tear arthropathy. Outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, range of motion, and strength measurements in forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR).
RESULTS: Our cohort included 9 (52.9%) men with a mean age of 43 yr. The average follow-up time was 5.9 yr. In patients with SCD, SA provided significant improvements in VAS pain (9.1-3.8; P < .001), FE (95°-128°; P < .001), ER (24°-38°; P < .001), IR score (3.2-5.2; P < .001), FE strength (4.2-4.8; P < .001), ER strength (4.1-4.7; P < .001), IR strength (4.1-4.7; P < .001), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (48.6-73.5; P < .001). When compared to the matched cohort, the SCD group demonstrated higher preoperative (9.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001) and postoperative VAS scores (3.8 vs. 1.3; P < .001). Other clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant differences. There were 5 (29%) complications, 2 (11.8%) episodes of sickle cell crisis, and 3 (18%) reoperations in the SCD cohort. When compared to the matched cohort, there were no statistical differences with respect to complications (29% vs. 12%; P = .140) or reoperations (18% vs. 12%; P = .387).
CONCLUSIONS: SA is an effective treatment modality for glenohumeral AVN in patients with SCD. Patients may expect improvements in pain, function, motion, and strength. However, final postoperative pain relief may be less than those treated with SA without SCD. Unique perioperative management is necessary to mitigate the risk of postoperative sickle cell crises.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed identifying 17 primary SAs (9 hemiarthroplasties, 7 anatomic total SAs, and 1 reverse total SA) in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SCD and a minimum of 2-year follow-up. This cohort was matched (1:2) according to age, sex, body mass index, type of prosthesis, and year of surgery with patients who had undergone hemiarthroplasty or total SA for osteoarthritis (OA) or reverse total SA for cuff tear arthropathy. Outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, range of motion, and strength measurements in forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR).
RESULTS: Our cohort included 9 (52.9%) men with a mean age of 43 yr. The average follow-up time was 5.9 yr. In patients with SCD, SA provided significant improvements in VAS pain (9.1-3.8; P < .001), FE (95°-128°; P < .001), ER (24°-38°; P < .001), IR score (3.2-5.2; P < .001), FE strength (4.2-4.8; P < .001), ER strength (4.1-4.7; P < .001), IR strength (4.1-4.7; P < .001), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (48.6-73.5; P < .001). When compared to the matched cohort, the SCD group demonstrated higher preoperative (9.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001) and postoperative VAS scores (3.8 vs. 1.3; P < .001). Other clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant differences. There were 5 (29%) complications, 2 (11.8%) episodes of sickle cell crisis, and 3 (18%) reoperations in the SCD cohort. When compared to the matched cohort, there were no statistical differences with respect to complications (29% vs. 12%; P = .140) or reoperations (18% vs. 12%; P = .387).
CONCLUSIONS: SA is an effective treatment modality for glenohumeral AVN in patients with SCD. Patients may expect improvements in pain, function, motion, and strength. However, final postoperative pain relief may be less than those treated with SA without SCD. Unique perioperative management is necessary to mitigate the risk of postoperative sickle cell crises.