Comparable low revision rates of stemmed and stemless total anatomic shoulder arthroplasties after exclusion of metal-backed glenoid components: a collaboration between the Australian and Danish national shoulder arthroplasty registries.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.022
Marc R K Nyring, Jeppe V Rasmussen, David R J Gill, Dylan Harries, Bo S Olsen, Richard S Page
{"title":"Comparable low revision rates of stemmed and stemless total anatomic shoulder arthroplasties after exclusion of metal-backed glenoid components: a collaboration between the Australian and Danish national shoulder arthroplasty registries.","authors":"Marc R K Nyring, Jeppe V Rasmussen, David R J Gill, Dylan Harries, Bo S Olsen, Richard S Page","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The stemmed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is the gold standard in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. However, the use of stemless total shoulder arthroplasties has increased in recent years. The number of revision procedures are relatively low, and therefore it has been recommended that national joint replacement registries should collaborate when comparing revision rates. Therefore, we aimed to compare the revision rates of stemmed and stemless TSA used for the diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis using data from both the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included all patients who were registered in the AOANJRR and the DSR from January 1, 2012, to December 2021 with an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty used for osteoarthritis. Revision for any reason was used as the primary outcome. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to illustrate the cumulative revision rates and a multivariate cox regression model to calculate the hazard ratios. All analyses were performed separately for data from AOANJRR and DSR, and the results were then reported using a qualitative approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13,066 arthroplasties from AOANJRR and 2882 arthroplasties from DSR were included. The hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA with stemless TSA as reference, adjusted for age and gender, was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.09, P < .001) in AOANJRR and 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.89, P = .014) in DSR. When including glenoid type and fixation, surface bearing (only in AOANJRR), and hospital volume in the cox regression model, the hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA compared to stemless TSA was 1.22 (95% CI 0.85-1.75, P = .286) in AOANJRR and 1.50 (95% CI 0.91-2.45, P = .109) in DSR. The adjusted hazard ratio for revision of total shoulder arthroplasties with metal-backed glenoid components compared to all-polyethylene glenoid components was 2.54 (95% CI 1.70-3.79, P < .001) in AOANJRR and 4.1 (95% CI 1.92-8.58, P < .001) in DSR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on data from 2 national shoulder arthroplasty registries, we found no significant difference in risk of revision between stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasties after adjusting for the type of glenoid component. We advocate that metal-backed glenoid components should be used with caution and not on a routine basis.</p>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The stemmed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is the gold standard in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. However, the use of stemless total shoulder arthroplasties has increased in recent years. The number of revision procedures are relatively low, and therefore it has been recommended that national joint replacement registries should collaborate when comparing revision rates. Therefore, we aimed to compare the revision rates of stemmed and stemless TSA used for the diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis using data from both the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR).

Methods: We included all patients who were registered in the AOANJRR and the DSR from January 1, 2012, to December 2021 with an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty used for osteoarthritis. Revision for any reason was used as the primary outcome. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to illustrate the cumulative revision rates and a multivariate cox regression model to calculate the hazard ratios. All analyses were performed separately for data from AOANJRR and DSR, and the results were then reported using a qualitative approach.

Results: A total of 13,066 arthroplasties from AOANJRR and 2882 arthroplasties from DSR were included. The hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA with stemless TSA as reference, adjusted for age and gender, was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.09, P < .001) in AOANJRR and 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.89, P = .014) in DSR. When including glenoid type and fixation, surface bearing (only in AOANJRR), and hospital volume in the cox regression model, the hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA compared to stemless TSA was 1.22 (95% CI 0.85-1.75, P = .286) in AOANJRR and 1.50 (95% CI 0.91-2.45, P = .109) in DSR. The adjusted hazard ratio for revision of total shoulder arthroplasties with metal-backed glenoid components compared to all-polyethylene glenoid components was 2.54 (95% CI 1.70-3.79, P < .001) in AOANJRR and 4.1 (95% CI 1.92-8.58, P < .001) in DSR.

Conclusion: Based on data from 2 national shoulder arthroplasty registries, we found no significant difference in risk of revision between stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasties after adjusting for the type of glenoid component. We advocate that metal-backed glenoid components should be used with caution and not on a routine basis.

排除金属背盂顶组件后,有柄和无柄解剖型全肩关节置换术的低翻修率具有可比性:澳大利亚和丹麦国家肩关节置换术登记处之间的合作。
背景:有柄解剖型全肩关节成形术是治疗盂肱骨关节炎的金标准。但近年来,无柄全肩关节置换术的使用率有所上升。翻修手术的数量相对较少,因此有人建议,在比较翻修率时,国家关节置换登记处应进行合作。因此,我们利用澳大利亚骨科协会全国关节置换登记处(AOANJRR)和丹麦肩关节置换登记处(DSR)的数据,旨在比较用于诊断盂肱骨关节炎的有柄和无柄TSA的翻修率:我们纳入了2012年1月1日至2021年12月期间在AOANJRR和DSR登记的所有骨关节炎解剖型全肩关节置换术患者。任何原因导致的翻修均为主要结果。我们采用卡普兰-梅耶法(Kaplan-Meier method)来说明累计翻修率,并采用多变量考克斯回归模型来计算危险比。所有分析均针对AOANJRR和DSR的数据分别进行,然后采用定性方法报告结果:结果:纳入了AOANJRR的13066例关节置换术和DSR的2882例关节置换术。根据年龄和性别调整后,有柄 TSA 与无柄 TSA 作为参考的翻修危险比为 1.67(95% CI 1.34-2.09,p 结论:根据两个全国性肩关节置换登记处的数据,我们发现在调整盂部件类型后,有柄和无柄全肩关节置换术的翻修风险没有显著差异。我们主张应谨慎使用金属支撑盂组件,而不是将其作为常规。
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
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
23.30%
发文量
604
审稿时长
11.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
×
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