Li Troy, Levy Kenneth H, Duey Akiro H, Patel Akshar V, White Christopher A, Cirino Carl M, Williams Alexis, Whitelaw Kathryn, Shukla Dave, Parsons Bradford O, Flatow Evan L, Cagle Paul J
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Clin Shoulder Elb. 2023 Sep;26(3):245-251. doi: 10.5397/cise.2023.00199. Epub 2023 Aug 17.
For anatomic total arthroscopic repair, cementless humeral fixation has recently gained popularity. However, few studies have compared clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes between cemented and press-fit humeral fixation, and none have performed follow-up for longer than 5 years. In this study, we compared long-term postoperative outcomes in patients receiving a cemented versus press-fit humeral stem anatomic arthroscopic repair.
This study retrospectively analyzed 169 shoulders that required primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). Shoulders were stratified by humeral stem fixation technique: cementation or press-fit. Data were collected pre- and postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included range of motion, patient reported outcomes, and radiographic measures.
One hundred thirty-eight cemented humeral stems and 31 press-fit stems were included. Significant improvements in range of motion were seen in all aTSA patients with no significant differences between final cemented and press-fit stems (forward elevation: P=0.12, external rotation: P=0.60, and internal rotation: P=0.77). Patient reported outcome metrics also exhibited sustained improvement through final follow-up. However, at final follow-up, the press-fit stem cohort had significantly better overall scores when compared to the cemented cohort (visual analog score: P=0.04, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Score: P<0.01, Simple Shoulder Test score: P=0.03). Humeral radiolucency was noted in two cemented implants and one press-fit implant. No significant differences in implant survival were observed between the two cohorts (P=0.75).
In this series, we found that irrespective of humeral fixation technique, aTSA significantly improves shoulder function. However, within this cohort, press-fit stems provided significantly better outcomes than cemented stems in terms of patient reported outcome scores. Level of evidence: III.
对于解剖型全关节镜修复术,非骨水泥型肱骨固定近来越来越受欢迎。然而,很少有研究比较骨水泥型和压配型肱骨固定在临床、影像学及患者报告结局方面的差异,且尚无研究进行超过5年的随访。在本研究中,我们比较了接受骨水泥型与压配型肱骨干解剖型关节镜修复术患者的长期术后结局。
本研究回顾性分析了169例需要初次解剖型全肩关节置换术(aTSA)的肩关节。根据肱骨干固定技术将肩关节分层:骨水泥固定或压配固定。术前及术后收集数据。主要结局指标包括活动范围、患者报告结局及影像学指标。
纳入138例骨水泥型肱骨干和31例压配型肱骨干。所有aTSA患者的活动范围均有显著改善,最终骨水泥型和压配型肱骨干之间无显著差异(前屈:P = 0.12,外旋:P = 0.60,内旋:P = 0.77)。患者报告结局指标在末次随访时也持续改善。然而,在末次随访时,与骨水泥型队列相比,压配型肱骨干队列的总体评分显著更高(视觉模拟评分:P = 0.04,美国肩肘外科医师评分:P < 0.01,简单肩关节试验评分:P = 0.03)。在2例骨水泥型植入物和1例压配型植入物中发现肱骨透亮区。两组队列之间的植入物生存率无显著差异(P = 0.75)。
在本系列研究中,我们发现无论肱骨固定技术如何,aTSA均能显著改善肩关节功能。然而,在该队列中,就患者报告结局评分而言,压配型肱骨干的结局显著优于骨水泥型肱骨干。证据级别:III级。