Dane C Peckston, Elliott D'Costa, David Rj Gill, Dylan Harries, Richard Page, Mohammed Baba
{"title":"中央干骺端肱骨固定无柄肩关节置换术与解剖肩关节置换术在国家登记队列中的比较分析。","authors":"Dane C Peckston, Elliott D'Costa, David Rj Gill, Dylan Harries, Richard Page, Mohammed Baba","doi":"10.1177/17585732241307245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to determine the revision outcome between a centrally fixed stemless anatomic design and other total anatomic shoulder replacements using data from a large national arthroplasty registry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study period was from December 2011 to December 2022 and included three cohorts; primary Affinis stemless anatomic (AFS), all other primary total stemless anatomic (sTSA) and primary total stemmed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The endpoint was all-cause revision using cumulative percent revision (CPR). Hazard ratio (HR) models were adjusted for age and gender.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2489 primary AFS, 1593 primary sTSA and 11,023 primary aTSA. There was no difference in revision rates between the AFS and the sTSA group. The aTSA group had a significantly higher rate of revision compared to both AFS (HR = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-2.05, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and sTSA (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.21-2.15, <i>p</i> = 0.001). However, sub-analyses stratifying for highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) showed no differences between the groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The rates of revision between the AFS design and other stemless prostheses were similar. Stemless had lower revision rates to aTSA. When only considering XLPE cemented glenoids, there was no significant difference in revision rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":36705,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":"17585732241307245"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669123/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative analysis of a central metaphyseal humeral fixation stemless shoulder arthroplasty to an anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in a national registry cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Dane C Peckston, Elliott D'Costa, David Rj Gill, Dylan Harries, Richard Page, Mohammed Baba\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17585732241307245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to determine the revision outcome between a centrally fixed stemless anatomic design and other total anatomic shoulder replacements using data from a large national arthroplasty registry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study period was from December 2011 to December 2022 and included three cohorts; primary Affinis stemless anatomic (AFS), all other primary total stemless anatomic (sTSA) and primary total stemmed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The endpoint was all-cause revision using cumulative percent revision (CPR). Hazard ratio (HR) models were adjusted for age and gender.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2489 primary AFS, 1593 primary sTSA and 11,023 primary aTSA. There was no difference in revision rates between the AFS and the sTSA group. The aTSA group had a significantly higher rate of revision compared to both AFS (HR = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-2.05, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and sTSA (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.21-2.15, <i>p</i> = 0.001). However, sub-analyses stratifying for highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) showed no differences between the groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The rates of revision between the AFS design and other stemless prostheses were similar. Stemless had lower revision rates to aTSA. When only considering XLPE cemented glenoids, there was no significant difference in revision rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Shoulder and Elbow\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17585732241307245\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669123/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Shoulder and Elbow\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241307245\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241307245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究旨在利用大型国家关节置换术登记处的数据,确定中央固定无干解剖设计和其他全解剖肩关节置换术的翻修结果。方法:研究时间为2011年12月至2022年12月,包括3个队列;原发性Affinis无干解剖(AFS),所有其他原发性全无干解剖(sTSA)和原发性全干解剖肩关节置换术(aTSA)。终点是使用累积百分比修正(CPR)的全因修正。风险比(HR)模型根据年龄和性别进行调整。结果:原发性AFS 2489例,原发性sTSA 1593例,原发性aTSA 11023例。AFS组和sTSA组的复习率没有差异。与两种AFS相比,aTSA组的修正率明显更高(HR = 1.63, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.30-2.05, p p = 0.001)。然而,对高交联聚乙烯(XLPE)分层的亚分析显示各组之间没有差异。讨论:AFS设计与其他无茎假体的修复率相似。Stemless对aTSA的修正率较低。当仅考虑XLPE关节盂骨水泥时,翻修率无显著差异。
A comparative analysis of a central metaphyseal humeral fixation stemless shoulder arthroplasty to an anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in a national registry cohort.
Background: This study aimed to determine the revision outcome between a centrally fixed stemless anatomic design and other total anatomic shoulder replacements using data from a large national arthroplasty registry.
Methods: The study period was from December 2011 to December 2022 and included three cohorts; primary Affinis stemless anatomic (AFS), all other primary total stemless anatomic (sTSA) and primary total stemmed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The endpoint was all-cause revision using cumulative percent revision (CPR). Hazard ratio (HR) models were adjusted for age and gender.
Results: There were 2489 primary AFS, 1593 primary sTSA and 11,023 primary aTSA. There was no difference in revision rates between the AFS and the sTSA group. The aTSA group had a significantly higher rate of revision compared to both AFS (HR = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-2.05, p < 0.001) and sTSA (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.21-2.15, p = 0.001). However, sub-analyses stratifying for highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) showed no differences between the groups.
Discussion: The rates of revision between the AFS design and other stemless prostheses were similar. Stemless had lower revision rates to aTSA. When only considering XLPE cemented glenoids, there was no significant difference in revision rates.