Imam Mohamed A, Neumann Jörg, Siebert Werner, Mai Sabine, Verborgt Olivier, Eckers Franziska, Jacobs Leo, Meyer Dominik C
Shoulder and Elbow unit, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Rowley Bristow Orthopaedic Unit, Ashford and St Peter's Hospital, Ashford, UK.
Shoulder Elbow. 2022 Apr;14(2):169-180. doi: 10.1177/1758573220977184. Epub 2020 Dec 20.
The aim of our prospective multicentre study is to evaluate the five-year follow-up outcomes of primary reverse shoulder replacement utilizing two different designs of glenoid baseplates.
There were 159 reverse shoulder replacements (91 cemented and 68 uncemented stems, 67 Trabecular Metal baseplates and 92 Anatomical Shoulder baseplates in 152 patients (99 women) with a mean age of 74.5 (58-90) years. The principal diagnosis was rotator cuff arthropathy in 108 shoulders.
Clinical and functional results improved significantly overall; the adjusted Constant Murley score improved from 28.2 ± 13.3 pre-operatively to 75.5 ± 22.8 ( < 0.0001) and the mean Subjective Shoulder Value improved from 27.5 ± 20 to 73.8 ± 21.3 points ( < 0.0001). Radiologically, there was good bony stability in 88% and 86% of cemented and uncemented stems without significant impact on the Constant Murley score and Subjective Shoulder Value at one, two and five years post-surgery. There were no significant clinical differences between Trabecular Metal and Anatomical Shoulder baseplates at five years. There were four cases of intraoperative shaft fractures that were managed with cables. Although the Trabecular Metal baseplates showed better integration radiologically, there was no significant difference in the mean of Constant Murley, Subjective Shoulder Value and the range of motion depending on the grade of inferior scapular notching at one-, two- and five-year intervals.
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores the function in shoulder with significant improvements in function and moderate complications with minor differences between both designs of baseplates that were not reflected clinically.
我们这项前瞻性多中心研究的目的是评估使用两种不同设计的关节盂基板进行初次反式肩关节置换的五年随访结果。
对152例患者(99例女性)进行了159例反式肩关节置换,平均年龄74.5岁(58 - 90岁),其中91例使用骨水泥固定柄,68例使用非骨水泥固定柄,67例使用小梁金属基板,92例使用解剖型肩关节基板。主要诊断为108例肩袖关节病。
总体临床和功能结果显著改善;调整后的Constant Murley评分从术前的28.2±13.3提高到75.5±22.8(P<0.0001),平均主观肩关节评价值从27.5±20提高到73.8±21.3分(P<0.0001)。放射学检查显示,88%的骨水泥固定柄和86%的非骨水泥固定柄具有良好的骨稳定性,在术后1年、2年和5年对Constant Murley评分和主观肩关节评价值无显著影响。五年时小梁金属基板和解剖型肩关节基板之间无显著临床差异。有4例术中发生骨干骨折,采用缆线处理。尽管小梁金属基板在放射学上显示出更好的整合,但在1年、2年和5年时,根据肩胛下切迹分级,Constant Murley评分、主观肩关节评价值和活动范围的平均值无显著差异。
反式全肩关节置换术可恢复肩关节功能,功能有显著改善,并发症中等,两种基板设计之间的微小差异未在临床上体现。