Shoulder Arthroplasty After Previous Nonarthroplasty Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Complications.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2024-03-20 eCollection Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00239
Peyman Mirghaderi, Alireza Azarboo, Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini, Nasim Eshraghi, Hamed Vahedi, Surena Namdari
{"title":"Shoulder Arthroplasty After Previous Nonarthroplasty Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Complications.","authors":"Peyman Mirghaderi, Alireza Azarboo, Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini, Nasim Eshraghi, Hamed Vahedi, Surena Namdari","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many patients who undergo shoulder arthroplasty (SA) have had at least 1 nonarthroplasty shoulder surgery before the surgery. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of previous shoulder surgery on the outcome of SA. A systematic review was conducted to compare functional outcomes and complications between SA patients with and without prior non-SA surgery on the ipsilateral shoulder.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science comprehensively from inception to January 2023. Based on 9,279 records reviewed, 26 comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis consisting of 5,431 shoulders with prior nonarthroplasty procedures (cases) and 55,144 shoulders without previous surgery (controls). Variables such as functional scores, complications, and range of motion were compared between cases and controls using Review Manager Software. In addition, subgroup analysis was conducted based on prior surgery type (rotator cuff repair [RCR], open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF], soft tissue repairs, and not specified) and type of SA (hemiarthroplasty, anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty [RTSA]). The results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Except for a higher rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who had undergone previous arthroscopic surgery (OR, 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-4.01; p < 0.01), a higher rate of complications was only observed in patients with previous ORIF. These complications included aseptic loosening (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.14-5.50; p < 0.01), shoulder dislocation (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.84; p = 0.04), overall complication (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 2.38-6.55; p < 0.01), and revision (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.28-4.97; p = 0.01). Patients with a history of previous surgery demonstrated inferior functional outcomes in comparison with the control group, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (SMD, -0.39; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.27; p < 0.01; I2 = 36%), Constant-Murley score (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.24; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), abduction (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.08; p = 0.01; I2 = 54%), and flexion (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.21; p < 0.01; I2 = 40%). Subgroup analysis by previous type of surgery was not possible regarding functional outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients who have had prior fracture surgery are at a higher risk of complications, reoperations, and revisions after SA than controls. The normal shoulder anatomy may be disrupted by prior surgery, which makes arthroplasty technically challenging, particularly when it comes to soft tissue balance. On the other hand, RCR before SA did not negatively affect clinical outcomes after RTSA and did not have a higher rate of overall complications (except PJI).</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III (Treatment Studies). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"12 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many patients who undergo shoulder arthroplasty (SA) have had at least 1 nonarthroplasty shoulder surgery before the surgery. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of previous shoulder surgery on the outcome of SA. A systematic review was conducted to compare functional outcomes and complications between SA patients with and without prior non-SA surgery on the ipsilateral shoulder.

Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science comprehensively from inception to January 2023. Based on 9,279 records reviewed, 26 comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis consisting of 5,431 shoulders with prior nonarthroplasty procedures (cases) and 55,144 shoulders without previous surgery (controls). Variables such as functional scores, complications, and range of motion were compared between cases and controls using Review Manager Software. In addition, subgroup analysis was conducted based on prior surgery type (rotator cuff repair [RCR], open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF], soft tissue repairs, and not specified) and type of SA (hemiarthroplasty, anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty [RTSA]). The results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs).

Results: Except for a higher rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who had undergone previous arthroscopic surgery (OR, 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-4.01; p < 0.01), a higher rate of complications was only observed in patients with previous ORIF. These complications included aseptic loosening (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.14-5.50; p < 0.01), shoulder dislocation (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.84; p = 0.04), overall complication (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 2.38-6.55; p < 0.01), and revision (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.28-4.97; p = 0.01). Patients with a history of previous surgery demonstrated inferior functional outcomes in comparison with the control group, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (SMD, -0.39; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.27; p < 0.01; I2 = 36%), Constant-Murley score (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.24; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), abduction (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.08; p = 0.01; I2 = 54%), and flexion (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.21; p < 0.01; I2 = 40%). Subgroup analysis by previous type of surgery was not possible regarding functional outcomes.

Conclusion: Patients who have had prior fracture surgery are at a higher risk of complications, reoperations, and revisions after SA than controls. The normal shoulder anatomy may be disrupted by prior surgery, which makes arthroplasty technically challenging, particularly when it comes to soft tissue balance. On the other hand, RCR before SA did not negatively affect clinical outcomes after RTSA and did not have a higher rate of overall complications (except PJI).

Level of evidence: Level III (Treatment Studies). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

曾接受过非关节置换手术的肩关节置换术:临床疗效和并发症的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。
背景:许多接受肩关节置换术(SA)的患者在手术前至少接受过一次非关节置换肩关节手术。关于既往肩关节手术对肩关节置换术结果的影响,目前存在相互矛盾的证据。我们进行了一项系统性研究,以比较同侧肩关节接受过与未接受过非肩关节置换手术的肩关节置换术患者的功能预后和并发症:我们遵循《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南,全面检索了从开始到 2023 年 1 月的 MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Web of Science。根据所查阅的 9,279 条记录,荟萃分析纳入了 26 项比较研究,包括 5,431 例既往接受过非关节成形术的肩关节(病例)和 55,144 例既往未接受过手术的肩关节(对照组)。使用Review Manager软件对病例和对照组的功能评分、并发症和活动范围等变量进行了比较。此外,还根据之前的手术类型(肩袖修复[RCR]、切开复位内固定[ORIF]、软组织修复和未指定)和SA类型(半关节成形术、解剖型全肩关节成形术和反向全肩关节成形术[RTSA])进行了亚组分析。结果以几率比(ORs)或标准化平均差(SMDs)表示:除了曾接受过关节镜手术的患者发生假体周围关节感染(PJI)的比例较高(OR,2.58;95% 置信区间[CI],1.66-4.01;P <0.01)外,只有曾接受过ORIF手术的患者发生并发症的比例较高。这些并发症包括无菌性松动(OR,3.43;95% CI,2.14-5.50;P <0.01)、肩关节脱位(OR,2.25;95% CI,1.05-4.84;P =0.04)、整体并发症(OR,3.95;95% CI,2.38-6.55;P <0.01)和翻修(OR,2.52;95% CI,1.28-4.97;P =0.01)。与对照组(包括美国肩肘外科医生)相比,既往手术史患者的功能结果较差(SMD,-0.39;95% CI,-0.51 至 -0.27;P < 0.01;I2 = 36%)、Constant-Murley评分(SMD,-0.34;95% CI,-0.44至-0.24;P < 0.01;I2 = 0%)、外展(SMD,-0.26;95% CI,-0.45至-0.08;P = 0.01;I2 = 54%)和屈曲(SMD,-0.33;95% CI,-0.46至-0.21;P < 0.01;I2 = 40%)。在功能结果方面,无法根据既往手术类型进行分组分析:结论:与对照组相比,既往接受过骨折手术的患者在SA术后出现并发症、再次手术和翻修的风险更高。之前的手术可能会破坏正常的肩部解剖结构,这使得关节置换术在技术上具有挑战性,尤其是在软组织平衡方面。另一方面,肩关节置换术前的RCR并不会对肩关节置换术后的临床效果产生负面影响,总体并发症(除PJI外)的发生率也不会更高:证据等级:三级(治疗研究)。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信