Primary Versus Salvage Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Patrick A Nelson, Changyow C Kwan, Vehniah K Tjong, Michael A Terry, Ujash Sheth
{"title":"Primary Versus Salvage Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Patrick A Nelson, Changyow C Kwan, Vehniah K Tjong, Michael A Terry, Ujash Sheth","doi":"10.1177/2471549220949731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is currently no established consensus on best treatment for complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in the elderly. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a viable option in this population but many times is used as a salvage procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of studies comparing RTSA as a primary treatment for PHF versus as a salvage procedure following failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), humeral intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty (HA) or non-operative treatment was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Pooled outcomes and sub-group analyses assessing range of motion, patient reported outcomes and complications were examined using RevMan.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five articles were included in final analysis with 104 patients in the primary RTSA group and 147 in the salvage RTSA group compromising 251 total patients. Primary RTSA had a statistically significant advantage in range of motion (forward flexion and external rotation), patient reported outcomes, and complications compared to salvage RTSA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the best available evidence, primary RTSA may result in slightly better patient reported outcomes, range of motion and a lower rate of complication when compared to salvage RTSA. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of the current review.</p>","PeriodicalId":73942,"journal":{"name":"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty","volume":"4 ","pages":"2471549220949731"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/d8/10.1177_2471549220949731.PMC8282171.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2471549220949731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is currently no established consensus on best treatment for complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in the elderly. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a viable option in this population but many times is used as a salvage procedure.
Methods: A systematic review of studies comparing RTSA as a primary treatment for PHF versus as a salvage procedure following failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), humeral intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty (HA) or non-operative treatment was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Pooled outcomes and sub-group analyses assessing range of motion, patient reported outcomes and complications were examined using RevMan.
Results: Five articles were included in final analysis with 104 patients in the primary RTSA group and 147 in the salvage RTSA group compromising 251 total patients. Primary RTSA had a statistically significant advantage in range of motion (forward flexion and external rotation), patient reported outcomes, and complications compared to salvage RTSA.
Conclusions: Based on the best available evidence, primary RTSA may result in slightly better patient reported outcomes, range of motion and a lower rate of complication when compared to salvage RTSA. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of the current review.