反向肩关节置换术与解剖肩关节置换术后,基于内旋的日常生活活动受到限制

Q4 Medicine
Galo C. Bustamante BS, Erryk S. Katayama BS, Mustaqueem Pallumeera BS, Louis S. Barry BS, John S. Barnett BS, Akshar V. Patel BS, Gregory L. Cvetanovich MD, Julie Y. Bishop MD, Ryan C. Rauck MD
{"title":"反向肩关节置换术与解剖肩关节置换术后,基于内旋的日常生活活动受到限制","authors":"Galo C. Bustamante BS,&nbsp;Erryk S. Katayama BS,&nbsp;Mustaqueem Pallumeera BS,&nbsp;Louis S. Barry BS,&nbsp;John S. Barnett BS,&nbsp;Akshar V. Patel BS,&nbsp;Gregory L. Cvetanovich MD,&nbsp;Julie Y. Bishop MD,&nbsp;Ryan C. Rauck MD","doi":"10.1053/j.sart.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>One of the more common limitations after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is limited internal rotation (IR). Outcomes after rTSA are commonly reported as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) but are rarely assessed by specific activities of daily living (ADLs). Analyzing ADLs evaluates for specific motions from PROMs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the deficit in IR following rTSA through ADLs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective case-control study was conducted using institutional medical records. Patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed for demographic and clinical variables (type of arthroplasty, indication, range of motion and strength). PROMs were taken by phone at 2-year minimum follow-up. Statistics were calculated as two-tailed using Chi-square or simple t-tests as appropriate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 208 patients, 114 aTSA, and 94 rTSA were identified and included in this study. Both groups reported significant increases in range of motion and strength postoperatively. PROMs were mostly similar between aTSA and rTSA (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation 83.4 ± 17.1 vs. 82.3 ± 18.4, <em>P</em> = .643; visual analog scale Pain 2.2 ± 2.8 vs. 1.8 ± 2.4, <em>P</em> = .247), while Simple Shoulder Test did show a difference (9.2 ± 2.8 vs. 7.8 ± 3.2, <em>P</em> = .001) with higher scores in the aTSA cohort. The ADLs which showed significant disparity between aTSA and rTSA were toileting (<em>P</em> = .001), donning a coat (<em>P</em> = .017), reaching one’s back (<em>P</em> = .017), as well as throwing overhand (0.013) with rTSA patients reporting more difficulty in all these ADLs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both aTSA and rTSA are safe and efficacious options for shoulder replacement, as evidenced by high Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and low visual analog scale pain scores and should be used according to their established indications. Surgeons may counsel rTSA patients about potential increased deficits in ADLs reliant on IR such as managing toileting and dressing compared to aTSA recipients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":39885,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Arthroplasty","volume":"34 4","pages":"Pages 877-883"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internal rotation-based activities of daily living show limitations following reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus anatomic shoulder arthroplasty\",\"authors\":\"Galo C. Bustamante BS,&nbsp;Erryk S. Katayama BS,&nbsp;Mustaqueem Pallumeera BS,&nbsp;Louis S. Barry BS,&nbsp;John S. Barnett BS,&nbsp;Akshar V. Patel BS,&nbsp;Gregory L. Cvetanovich MD,&nbsp;Julie Y. Bishop MD,&nbsp;Ryan C. Rauck MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1053/j.sart.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>One of the more common limitations after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is limited internal rotation (IR). Outcomes after rTSA are commonly reported as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) but are rarely assessed by specific activities of daily living (ADLs). Analyzing ADLs evaluates for specific motions from PROMs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the deficit in IR following rTSA through ADLs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective case-control study was conducted using institutional medical records. Patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed for demographic and clinical variables (type of arthroplasty, indication, range of motion and strength). PROMs were taken by phone at 2-year minimum follow-up. Statistics were calculated as two-tailed using Chi-square or simple t-tests as appropriate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 208 patients, 114 aTSA, and 94 rTSA were identified and included in this study. Both groups reported significant increases in range of motion and strength postoperatively. PROMs were mostly similar between aTSA and rTSA (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation 83.4 ± 17.1 vs. 82.3 ± 18.4, <em>P</em> = .643; visual analog scale Pain 2.2 ± 2.8 vs. 1.8 ± 2.4, <em>P</em> = .247), while Simple Shoulder Test did show a difference (9.2 ± 2.8 vs. 7.8 ± 3.2, <em>P</em> = .001) with higher scores in the aTSA cohort. The ADLs which showed significant disparity between aTSA and rTSA were toileting (<em>P</em> = .001), donning a coat (<em>P</em> = .017), reaching one’s back (<em>P</em> = .017), as well as throwing overhand (0.013) with rTSA patients reporting more difficulty in all these ADLs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both aTSA and rTSA are safe and efficacious options for shoulder replacement, as evidenced by high Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and low visual analog scale pain scores and should be used according to their established indications. Surgeons may counsel rTSA patients about potential increased deficits in ADLs reliant on IR such as managing toileting and dressing compared to aTSA recipients.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in Arthroplasty\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 877-883\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in Arthroplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045452724000804\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045452724000804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:逆行全肩关节置换术(rTSA)后最常见的局限性之一是受限的内旋(IR)。rTSA后的结果通常报告为患者报告的结果测量(PROMs),但很少通过特定的日常生活活动(adl)来评估。分析adl评估来自prom的特定运动。本研究的目的是通过ADLs研究rTSA后IR的缺陷。方法采用回顾性病例对照研究。对2009年至2020年间接受全肩关节置换术的患者进行人口统计学和临床变量(关节置换术类型、适应症、活动范围和力量)的回顾。在最少2年的随访中,通过电话采集PROMs。统计量计算为双尾,适当时使用卡方检验或简单t检验。结果在208例患者中,有114例aTSA和94例rTSA被纳入本研究。两组患者术后活动范围和力量均有显著增加。aTSA与rTSA之间的PROMs基本相似(单次评估数值评估83.4±17.1 vs. 82.3±18.4,P = .643;视觉模拟量表疼痛2.2±2.8比1.8±2.4,P = .247),而简单肩部测试在aTSA队列中得分较高,差异为(9.2±2.8比7.8±3.2,P = .001)。aTSA和rTSA的adl有显著差异的是如厕(P = 0.001)、穿外套(P = 0.017)、伸直背部(P = 0.017)和过手投掷(0.013),rTSA患者报告在所有这些adl中都更困难。结论aTSA和rTSA均是肩关节置换术安全有效的选择,单评估数值评估评分较高,视觉模拟评分较低,应根据其既定适应症使用。外科医生可能会告知rTSA患者,与aTSA接受者相比,依赖IR的adl(如管理如厕和穿衣)可能增加的缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Internal rotation-based activities of daily living show limitations following reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus anatomic shoulder arthroplasty

Background

One of the more common limitations after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is limited internal rotation (IR). Outcomes after rTSA are commonly reported as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) but are rarely assessed by specific activities of daily living (ADLs). Analyzing ADLs evaluates for specific motions from PROMs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the deficit in IR following rTSA through ADLs.

Methods

A retrospective case-control study was conducted using institutional medical records. Patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed for demographic and clinical variables (type of arthroplasty, indication, range of motion and strength). PROMs were taken by phone at 2-year minimum follow-up. Statistics were calculated as two-tailed using Chi-square or simple t-tests as appropriate.

Results

Among 208 patients, 114 aTSA, and 94 rTSA were identified and included in this study. Both groups reported significant increases in range of motion and strength postoperatively. PROMs were mostly similar between aTSA and rTSA (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation 83.4 ± 17.1 vs. 82.3 ± 18.4, P = .643; visual analog scale Pain 2.2 ± 2.8 vs. 1.8 ± 2.4, P = .247), while Simple Shoulder Test did show a difference (9.2 ± 2.8 vs. 7.8 ± 3.2, P = .001) with higher scores in the aTSA cohort. The ADLs which showed significant disparity between aTSA and rTSA were toileting (P = .001), donning a coat (P = .017), reaching one’s back (P = .017), as well as throwing overhand (0.013) with rTSA patients reporting more difficulty in all these ADLs.

Conclusion

Both aTSA and rTSA are safe and efficacious options for shoulder replacement, as evidenced by high Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and low visual analog scale pain scores and should be used according to their established indications. Surgeons may counsel rTSA patients about potential increased deficits in ADLs reliant on IR such as managing toileting and dressing compared to aTSA recipients.
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
Seminars in Arthroplasty
Seminars in Arthroplasty Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
期刊介绍: Each issue of Seminars in Arthroplasty provides a comprehensive, current overview of a single topic in arthroplasty. The journal addresses orthopedic surgeons, providing authoritative reviews with emphasis on new developments relevant to their practice.
×
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