The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen.
Acta Orthop. 2024 Aug 27;95:463-471. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.41344.
We aimed to report the survival of different reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs and brands, and factors associated with revision. The secondary aim was to evaluate the reasons for revision.
We included 4,696 inlay and 798 onlay RSAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2007-2022. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and Cox models adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis, implant design, humeral fixation, and previous surgery were investigated to assess revision risks. The reasons for revision were compared using competing risk analysis.
Overall, the 10-year survival rate was 94% (confidence interval [CI] 93-95). At 5 years all brands exceeded 90%. Compared with Delta Xtend (n = 3,865), Aequalis Ascend Flex (HR 2.8, CI 1.7-4.6), Aequalis Reversed II (HR 2.2, CI 1.2-4.2), SMR (HR 2.5, CI 1.3-4.7), and Promos (HR 2.2, CI 1.0-4.9) had increased risk of revision. Onlay and inlay RSAs had similar risk of revision (HR 1.2, CI 0.8-1.8). Instability and deep infection were the most frequent revision causes. Male sex (HR 2.3, CI 1.7-3.1), fracture sequelae (HR 3.1, CI 2.1-5.0), and fractures operated on with uncemented humeral stems had increased risk of revision (HR 3.5, CI 1.6-7.3).
We found similar risk of revision with inlay and onlay designs. Some prosthesis brands had a higher rate of revision than the most common implant, but numbers were low.
本研究旨在报告不同反肩置换术(RSA)设计和品牌的生存率,以及与翻修相关的因素。次要目的是评估翻修的原因。
我们纳入了 2007 年至 2022 年向挪威关节置换登记处(NAR)报告的 4696 例镶嵌式 RSA 和 798 例覆盖式 RSA。采用 Kaplan-Meier 生存估计和 Cox 模型(调整年龄、性别、诊断、植入物设计、肱骨头固定和既往手术)评估翻修风险。使用竞争风险分析比较翻修原因。
总体而言,10 年生存率为 94%(置信区间[CI]93-95)。5 年时所有品牌均超过 90%。与 Delta Xtend(n=3865)相比,Aequalis Ascend Flex(HR 2.8,CI 1.7-4.6)、Aequalis Reversed II(HR 2.2,CI 1.2-4.2)、SMR(HR 2.5,CI 1.3-4.7)和 Promos(HR 2.2,CI 1.0-4.9)的翻修风险更高。覆盖式和镶嵌式 RSA 的翻修风险相似(HR 1.2,CI 0.8-1.8)。不稳定和深部感染是最常见的翻修原因。男性(HR 2.3,CI 1.7-3.1)、骨折后遗症(HR 3.1,CI 2.1-5.0)和未用骨水泥固定肱骨头的骨折手术与翻修风险增加相关(HR 3.5,CI 1.6-7.3)。
我们发现镶嵌式和覆盖式设计的翻修风险相似。一些假体品牌的翻修率高于最常见的植入物,但数量较少。