Suppr超能文献

初次嵌体式反肩关节置换术的翻修率高于覆盖式反肩关节置换术:来自澳大利亚骨科协会国家关节置换登记处的分析。

Primary inlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher rate of revision than onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

作者信息

Gill David Rj, Gill Stephen D, Corfield Sophia, Holder Carl, Page Richard S

机构信息

Orthopaedics Central, Nedlands, Western Australia.

Barwon Centre for Orthopaedic Research and Education (B-CORE), St John of God Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

出版信息

Shoulder Elbow. 2023 Nov;15(3 Suppl):75-81. doi: 10.1177/17585732221122275. Epub 2022 Aug 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two classes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), inlay (in-rTSA), and onlay (on-rTSA) were compared to determine differences in rates of revision.

METHODS

Between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020, all primary in-rTSA or on-rTSA procedures were compared from a large national arthroplasty registry by cumulative percentage revision (CPR). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, glenosphere size, and humeral fixation determined any associations to the risk of revision.

RESULTS

Of the 14,807 in-rTSA and 6590 on-rTSA procedures, the CPR at seven years was 4.9%. There was an increased risk of revision for in-rTSA vs on-rTSA ( = 0.039) when adjusted for age, gender, glenosphere size, and humeral fixation. Glenosphere size <38 mm adjusted for age and gender ( = 0.016) increased the revision risk. Revision for instability/dislocation occurred more often for in-rTSA vs on-rTSA ( < 0.001) in the first three months. Males had a higher rate of revision than females for in-rTSA (3months+,  = 0.001) and for on-rTSA ( < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Care should be taken when considering in-rTSA particularly in males, and if preoperative planning suggests a small (<38 mm) glenosphere.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. Original article.

摘要

背景

比较了两类初次翻修全肩关节置换术(rTSA),即嵌体式(in-rTSA)和覆盖式(on-rTSA),以确定翻修率的差异。

方法

在2012年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间,通过累积翻修百分比(CPR)对一个大型国家关节置换登记处的所有初次in-rTSA或on-rTSA手术进行比较。根据年龄、性别、球窝假体尺寸和肱骨固定情况调整的Cox比例风险模型对生存概率和风险比进行Kaplan-Meier估计,以确定与翻修风险的任何关联。

结果

在14807例in-rTSA手术和6590例on-rTSA手术中,7年时的CPR为4.9%。在根据年龄、性别、球窝假体尺寸和肱骨固定情况进行调整后,in-rTSA与on-rTSA相比,翻修风险增加(=0.039)。根据年龄和性别调整后,球窝假体尺寸<38 mm(=0.016)会增加翻修风险。在前三个月,in-rTSA与on-rTSA相比,因不稳定/脱位进行翻修的情况更常见(<0.001)。对于in-rTSA,男性的翻修率高于女性(3个月以上,=0.001);对于on-rTSA,也是如此(<0.001)。

讨论

在考虑in-rTSA时应谨慎,尤其是男性,以及术前规划显示球窝假体较小(<38 mm)的情况。

证据水平

III级,治疗性研究。原创文章。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验