Is the impact of previous rotator cuff repair on the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty clinically relevant? A systematic review of 2879 shoulders

Alexander N. Berk, Allison J Rao, Kyle K Obana, A. M. Ifarraguerri, David P. Trofa, Patrick M. Connor, Shadley C. Schiffern, Nady Hamid, Bryan M. Saltzman
{"title":"Is the impact of previous rotator cuff repair on the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty clinically relevant? A systematic review of 2879 shoulders","authors":"Alexander N. Berk, Allison J Rao, Kyle K Obana, A. M. Ifarraguerri, David P. Trofa, Patrick M. Connor, Shadley C. Schiffern, Nady Hamid, Bryan M. Saltzman","doi":"10.1177/17585732241268712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) remain inconsistent. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to systematically review the current outcomes literature on RSA in patients with prior RCR and to compare the results with controls without prior RCR. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and outcome studies reporting on functional and clinical outcomes were included. A total of 11 studies encompassing 2879 shoulders were included. Improvements in postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the baseline were higher in controls including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (47.0 vs 39.5), Simple Shoulder Test (6.0 vs 4.9), Constant score (32.6 vs 26.4), and Visual Analog Scale for pain (−5.6 vs −4.9). Improvement in range of motion was greater in the control group, including external rotation (17° vs 11°), anterior elevation (56° vs 43°), and abduction (52° vs 43°). The overall complication rate (8% vs 5%) and revision rate (3% vs 1%) were higher in the RCR group. Differences in postoperative PROs and improvement from the baseline demonstrate a trend toward lower outcomes in patients with prior RCR but may be below the minimal clinically import difference. IV; systematic review","PeriodicalId":507613,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder & Elbow","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder & Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241268712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) remain inconsistent. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to systematically review the current outcomes literature on RSA in patients with prior RCR and to compare the results with controls without prior RCR. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and outcome studies reporting on functional and clinical outcomes were included. A total of 11 studies encompassing 2879 shoulders were included. Improvements in postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the baseline were higher in controls including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (47.0 vs 39.5), Simple Shoulder Test (6.0 vs 4.9), Constant score (32.6 vs 26.4), and Visual Analog Scale for pain (−5.6 vs −4.9). Improvement in range of motion was greater in the control group, including external rotation (17° vs 11°), anterior elevation (56° vs 43°), and abduction (52° vs 43°). The overall complication rate (8% vs 5%) and revision rate (3% vs 1%) were higher in the RCR group. Differences in postoperative PROs and improvement from the baseline demonstrate a trend toward lower outcomes in patients with prior RCR but may be below the minimal clinically import difference. IV; systematic review
既往肩袖修复术对反向肩关节置换术结果的影响是否具有临床相关性?对 2879 例肩关节的系统回顾
曾接受过肩袖修复术(RCR)的患者接受反向肩关节置换术(RSA)的结果仍不一致。因此,本研究的目的是系统回顾目前关于曾接受过肩袖修补术(RCR)的患者接受反向肩关节置换术(RSA)的结果文献,并将结果与未接受过肩袖修补术的对照组进行比较。本研究对相关文献进行了系统性回顾,并纳入了报告功能和临床结果的研究。共纳入了 11 项研究,涉及 2879 个肩关节。对照组患者的术后患者报告结果(PROs)较基线有更大改善,包括美国肩肘外科医生评分(47.0 vs 39.5)、简单肩关节测试(6.0 vs 4.9)、Constant评分(32.6 vs 26.4)和疼痛视觉模拟量表(-5.6 vs -4.9)。对照组的活动范围改善幅度更大,包括外旋(17° vs 11°)、前抬(56° vs 43°)和外展(52° vs 43°)。RCR 组的总体并发症发生率(8% 对 5%)和翻修率(3% 对 1%)更高。术后 PROs 的差异以及与基线相比的改善情况表明,曾接受过 RCR 的患者的预后有降低的趋势,但可能低于最小临床意义差异。IV;系统综述
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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