Lo Eddie Y, Nazemi Monia, Ouseph Alvin, Edwards Audrene S, Weingast Nancy, Krishnan Sumant G
The Shoulder Center Research, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
The Shoulder Service, Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Scott and White Health, Dallas, TX, USA.
J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2024 Jun 5;8:24715492241259470. doi: 10.1177/24715492241259470. eCollection 2024.
Although glenoid bone grafting and metallic augmented baseplates have demonstrated success in restoring the glenohumeral joint line in the recent literature, there remain no consensus guidelines defining the use of one versus the other.
Between 2017 and 2020, 15 primary RTSA with screw-in metallically augmented glenoid baseplates were identified and 2:1 matched by age, sex, and body mass index with primary bony-augmented glenoid baseplate patients. Patients with previous glenoid implantation or fracture were excluded. Charts, routine radiographic series (Grashey, Scapula Y, Axillary lateral), and 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) scans were retrospectively reviewed. Structural patient-specific metal or bony augmentation was indicated based on preoperative glenoid morphology as identified by 3D CT. Aseptic failure was identified as hardware breakage and/or shift in glenoid baseplate component position.
There were 45 eligible cases with mean age of 65.7 years (range 44-85 years) and 65.5 years (range 42-82 years) for the metallic-augmented and bone graft group, respectively. Correspondingly, mean follow up was 22.6 months (range 12-53 months), and 27.3 months (range 11-53 months). At latest follow up, there were no baseplate failures in the metallic augment group and 2 baseplate failures (7%) in the bone graft group at a mean of 42.5 months (range 32-53 months) postoperatively. Mean age of the bone failure group was 64.5 years (range 64-65 years).
Contemporary reversed shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate designs appear to have low incidence of failure. Further analysis is necessary to determine if a critical degree of glenoid retroversion or inclination is preferable with a specific form of augmentation.
III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison.
尽管在最近的文献中,肩胛盂植骨和金属增强基板已成功恢复了盂肱关节线,但对于使用其中一种而非另一种尚无共识性指南。
在2017年至2020年期间,确定了15例使用拧入式金属增强肩胛盂基板的初次反式全肩关节置换术(RTSA)患者,并按年龄、性别和体重指数与初次使用骨增强肩胛盂基板的患者进行2:1匹配。排除既往有肩胛盂植入或骨折的患者。对病历、常规X线片系列(Grashey位、肩胛Y位、腋侧位)和三维计算机断层扫描(3D CT)进行回顾性分析。根据术前3D CT确定的肩胛盂形态,选择患者特异性的金属或骨结构增强方式。无菌性失败定义为硬件断裂和/或肩胛盂基板组件位置偏移。
金属增强组和植骨组分别有45例符合条件的病例,平均年龄分别为65.7岁(44 - 85岁)和65.5岁(42 - 82岁)。相应地,平均随访时间分别为22.6个月(12 - 53个月)和27.3个月(11 - 53个月)。在最近一次随访时,金属增强组无基板失败,植骨组有2例基板失败(7%),平均发生在术后42.5个月(32 - 53个月)。骨失败组的平均年龄为64.5岁(64 - 65岁)。
当代反式全肩关节置换术的肩胛盂基板设计似乎失败率较低。需要进一步分析以确定特定增强形式下,肩胛盂后倾或倾斜的临界度数是否更优。
III级;回顾性队列比较。