Issa Zaid, Brorson Stig, Rasmussen Jeppe Vejlgaard
CEBO (Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics), Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
JSES Int. 2022 Jun 28;6(5):781-786. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.05.013. eCollection 2022 Sep.
The use of stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for osteoarthritis increases, but there is a paucity on its safety and efficacy and how it performs in comparison with stemmed TSA. The aim was to compare the 5-year cumulative survival rate and patient-reported outcome after stemless and stemmed TSA for osteoarthritis.
We included all stemmed (n = 1197) and stemless (n = 253) TSA for osteoarthritis reported to the Danish shoulder arthroplasty registry from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018.
Six (2.4%) stemless and 24 (2%) stemmed TSA were revised. The 5-year cumulative implant survival rates were 0.96 for stemless TSA and 0.97 for stemmed TSA. In the multivariate Cox regression model, the hazard ratio for revision was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.6) for stemless TSA compared with stemmed TSA. The mean Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was 82 (standard deviation = 21) for stemmed and 86 (standard deviation = 19) for stemless TSA. The stemless TSA had a statistically significant better WOOS compared with stemmed TSA, but the difference of 6.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-10.4) was not regarded as clinically relevant. There was no difference in WOOS between the Nano and the Eclipse systems.
We found a good 5-year cumulative implant survival rate of stemless TSA, which was comparable with stemmed TSA. Although the stemless TSA had a statistically significant better patient-reported outcome compared with stemmed TSA, the difference was not clinically relevant. Sparing the humeral shaft canal for later revision could be an argument for using stemless TSA instead of stemmed TSA.
无柄全肩关节置换术(TSA)用于骨关节炎的应用有所增加,但关于其安全性和有效性以及与有柄TSA相比的表现的研究较少。目的是比较无柄和有柄TSA治疗骨关节炎后的5年累积生存率和患者报告的结局。
我们纳入了2014年1月1日至2018年12月31日向丹麦肩关节置换登记处报告的所有用于骨关节炎的有柄(n = 1197)和无柄(n = 253)TSA。
6例(2.4%)无柄TSA和24例(2%)有柄TSA进行了翻修。无柄TSA的5年累积植入物生存率为0.96,有柄TSA为0.97。在多变量Cox回归模型中,与有柄TSA相比,无柄TSA翻修的风险比为1.1(95%置信区间,0.5 - 2.6)。有柄TSA的平均西安大略肩骨关节炎(WOOS)指数为82(标准差 = 21),无柄TSA为86(标准差 = 19)。与有柄TSA相比,无柄TSA的WOOS在统计学上有显著更好的表现,但6.2(95%置信区间,1.4 - 10.4)的差异不被认为具有临床相关性。Nano系统和Eclipse系统之间的WOOS没有差异。
我们发现无柄TSA的5年累积植入物生存率良好,与有柄TSA相当。尽管与有柄TSA相比,无柄TSA在患者报告的结局方面在统计学上有显著更好的表现,但差异不具有临床相关性。保留肱骨干髓腔以便日后翻修可能是使用无柄TSA而非有柄TSA的一个理由。