双侧反向肩关节置换术与双侧解剖肩关节置换术:荟萃分析与系统综述。

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-19 DOI:10.5397/cise.2023.00332
Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Jonathan Koa, Jaspal Singh, Joseph Abboud
{"title":"双侧反向肩关节置换术与双侧解剖肩关节置换术:荟萃分析与系统综述。","authors":"Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Jonathan Koa, Jaspal Singh, Joseph Abboud","doi":"10.5397/cise.2023.00332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As the population is aging and indications are expanding, shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more frequent, especially bilateral staged replacement. However, surgeons are hesitant to use bilateral reverse prostheses due to potential limitations on activities of daily living.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis was conducted to compare bilateral anatomic to bilateral reverse shoulder implants. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched until April 2023. The clinical outcomes consisted of postoperative functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], Physical Component Score [PCS], Mental Component Score, and Simple Shoulder Test), pain, and range of motion (external rotation and forward elevation). Three studies were included in this meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bilateral anatomic implants had better postoperative functional outcomes and range of motion, but no significant difference was seen in postoperative pain when compared to the reverse prosthesis. Better ASES score, SANE score, and PCS as well as better external rotation and forward elevation were seen in the bilateral anatomic shoulder replacement group, but no significant difference in pain levels was seen between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results may be explained by the lower baseline seen in the reverse prosthesis group, which may be due to an older population and different indications. Nevertheless, more randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Level of evidence: III.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":"196-202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181065/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus bilateral anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Jonathan Koa, Jaspal Singh, Joseph Abboud\",\"doi\":\"10.5397/cise.2023.00332\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As the population is aging and indications are expanding, shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more frequent, especially bilateral staged replacement. However, surgeons are hesitant to use bilateral reverse prostheses due to potential limitations on activities of daily living.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis was conducted to compare bilateral anatomic to bilateral reverse shoulder implants. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched until April 2023. The clinical outcomes consisted of postoperative functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], Physical Component Score [PCS], Mental Component Score, and Simple Shoulder Test), pain, and range of motion (external rotation and forward elevation). Three studies were included in this meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bilateral anatomic implants had better postoperative functional outcomes and range of motion, but no significant difference was seen in postoperative pain when compared to the reverse prosthesis. Better ASES score, SANE score, and PCS as well as better external rotation and forward elevation were seen in the bilateral anatomic shoulder replacement group, but no significant difference in pain levels was seen between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results may be explained by the lower baseline seen in the reverse prosthesis group, which may be due to an older population and different indications. Nevertheless, more randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Level of evidence: III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"196-202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181065/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2023.00332\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2023.00332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着人口老龄化和适应症的不断扩大,肩关节置换术越来越频繁,尤其是双侧分期置换。然而,由于双侧反向假体可能对日常生活造成限制,外科医生对使用双侧反向假体犹豫不决。本荟萃分析旨在比较双侧解剖肩关节假体和双侧反向肩关节假体。对PubMed、Cochrane和Google Scholar(第1-20页)进行了检索,直至2023年4月。临床结果包括术后功能评分(美国肩肘外科医生评分[ASES]、单一评估数字评价[SANE]、物理成分评分[PCS]、心理成分评分和简单肩关节测试)、疼痛和活动范围(外旋和前抬)。本荟萃分析包括三项研究。与反向假体相比,双侧解剖假体的术后功能效果和活动范围更好,但术后疼痛没有明显差异。双侧解剖型肩关节置换术组的ASES评分、SANE评分和PCS更好,外旋和前抬也更好,但两组的疼痛程度无明显差异。这些结果可能是由于反向假体组的基线较低,这可能是由于年龄较大的人群和不同的适应症造成的。不过,还需要更多的随机对照研究来证实这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus bilateral anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background: As the population is aging and indications are expanding, shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more frequent, especially bilateral staged replacement. However, surgeons are hesitant to use bilateral reverse prostheses due to potential limitations on activities of daily living.

Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare bilateral anatomic to bilateral reverse shoulder implants. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched until April 2023. The clinical outcomes consisted of postoperative functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], Physical Component Score [PCS], Mental Component Score, and Simple Shoulder Test), pain, and range of motion (external rotation and forward elevation). Three studies were included in this meta-analysis.

Results: Bilateral anatomic implants had better postoperative functional outcomes and range of motion, but no significant difference was seen in postoperative pain when compared to the reverse prosthesis. Better ASES score, SANE score, and PCS as well as better external rotation and forward elevation were seen in the bilateral anatomic shoulder replacement group, but no significant difference in pain levels was seen between the two groups.

Conclusions: The results may be explained by the lower baseline seen in the reverse prosthesis group, which may be due to an older population and different indications. Nevertheless, more randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Level of evidence: III.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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