Dataset Information

Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The number of shoulder replacements performed each year continues to increase, and the need for revision replacements has grown accordingly. The outcome of a revision replacement may influence which primary implant is selected and the timing of primary surgery, particularly in younger patients. The aim of this study was to establish the expected improvement in shoulder function and implant survival following revision of a hemiarthroplasty and revision of an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of all studies reporting shoulder scores or implant survival following revision hemiarthroplasty or revision TSA. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and National Joint Registry reports were searched. 15 studies were included, reporting on 593 revision anatomical shoulder replacements. There was large variation in the magnitude of improvement in shoulder scores following revision surgery. Over 80% of revision replacements last 5 years and over 70% last 10 years. There was no significant difference in shoulder scores or implant survival according to the type of primary implant. The belief that revision of a shoulder hemiarthroplasty may lead to improved outcomes compared to revision of a TSA is not supported by the current literature.

SUBMITTER: Davies A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9174976 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Davies Andrew A Selmi Hussain H Sabharwal Sanjeeve S Vella-Baldacchino Martinique M Liddle Alex D AD Reilly Peter P

Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty 20220426

The number of shoulder replacements performed each year continues to increase, and the need for revision replacements has grown accordingly. The outcome of a revision replacement may influence which primary implant is selected and the timing of primary surgery, particularly in younger patients. The aim of this study was to establish the expected improvement in shoulder function and implant survival following revision of a hemiarthroplasty and revision of an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty ...[more]

PMID: 35692902

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe implantation rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSAs) are increasing worldwide, resulting in higher absolute numbers of the associated complications and revision surgeries. This requires the discussion of salvage therapies for failed RTSAs without revision to a new RTSA. Revision to hemiarthroplasty may offer a valid fallback option in certain cases. This study aimed to analyze the incidence, indications, and clinical outcomes, especially the reduction in pain levels compared to a matched control group.MethodsOur prospectively enrolled patient cohort of RTSA implantations at a tertiary referral center between January 2005 and December 2018 was retrospectively queried for revision to a hemiarthroplasty. For clinical outcome evaluation, a minimum follow-up duration of 2 years after revision to hemiarthroplasty was required. Clinical outcome measures were compared to two matching groups, one with RTSA preserving revision and one without any reintervention. The outcome measures were the absolute and relative Constant-Murley score (aCS and rCS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), range of motion, and pain.ResultsA total of 21 out of 1237 RTSAs (1.7%) underwent salvage revision to hemiarthroplasty at a mean time of 20 ± 21 months (range, 1-75 months). Of those, 12 were available for a minimum follow-up of 2 years after revision to a hemiarthroplasty. The main indications were glenoid loosening (8/12), scapular spine fracture (2/12), and instability (2/21). Clinical outcome was analyzed at a mean follow-up period of 46 ± 26 months (24 months to 123 months) after revision to a hemiarthroplasty. The revision significantly reduced CS pain from 6 ± 4 points to 12 ± 3 points (scale 0 to 15 with 15 as optimum, P < .01). The aCS, rCS, SSV, and range of motion did not improve. Comparison with the RTSA preserving revision group and the RTSA group without reintervention showed significantly worse outcome scores for aCS (33 ± 10 vs. 55 ± 19 vs. 69 ± 12 points), rCS (41 ± 14% vs. 67 ± 20% vs. 84 ± 13%), SSV (35 ± 19% vs. 64 ± 20% vs. 81 ± 15%), flexion (53 ± 27° vs. 64 ± 20° vs. 128 ± 24°), and abduction (50 ± 23° vs. 109 ± 42° vs. 142 ± 24°). Pain was similar in all groups at the last follow-up visit.ConclusionIn a few cases, RTSA retention or revision to another RTSA is impossible. For those patients, conversion to hemiarthroplasty is a valid fallback option to reduce the patient's pain levels and provide low-level function.

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is estimated to grow in the following decades with a consequent increase of THA revisions (rTHA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare modular and monoblock stem in rTHA surgery, focusing on clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates.MethodsA literature search was performed using the following search strategy: ((Modular stem) OR (monolithic stem)) AND (hip review) on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) compared clinical and radiological outcomes, and complication rates for monoblock and modular revision femoral stem were included. The risk of bias was assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. The Review Manager (RevMan) software was used for the meta-analysis. The rate of complications was assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe authors included 11 OS and one RCT with 3,671 participants (mean age: 68.4 years old). The mean follow-up was 46.9 months. There was no prevalence of subsidence for one type of stem. Mean subsidence was from 0.92 to 10 mm for modular stem and from 1 to 15 mm for monoblock stem. Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) showed better results with modular stems without statistical significance [mean difference (MD) =1.32; 95% CI: -1.62 to 4.27; P=0.38]. No statistically significant difference was found for dislocations (OR =2.48; 95% CI: 0.67 to 9.14; P=0.17), infections (OR =1.07; 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.23; P=0.86), intraoperative fractures (OR =1.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 6.21; P=0.48), and postoperative fractures (OR =1.60; 95% CI: 0.55 to 4.64; P=0.39).ConclusionsModular and monoblock stems show comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for rTHA. Both stems are valid and effective options for managing femoral bone deficit in hip revision surgery. The main limitation of this study is the small number and low quality of enclosed studies that compared the two stems. Moreover, the modular stem is usually used for more complex cases with lower quality femoral bone stock.

Dataset Information

Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets