肱骨近端骨折中位与侧位反向全肩关节置换术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-21 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00160
Kara E Holt, Victoria E Bindi, Timothy R Buchanan, Akshay R Reddy, Abtahi Tishad, Persis Desai, Keegan M Hones, Thomas W Wright, Bradley S Schoch, Joseph J King, Kevin A Hao
{"title":"肱骨近端骨折中位与侧位反向全肩关节置换术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Kara E Holt, Victoria E Bindi, Timothy R Buchanan, Akshay R Reddy, Abtahi Tishad, Persis Desai, Keegan M Hones, Thomas W Wright, Bradley S Schoch, Joseph J King, Kevin A Hao","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly used in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with reliable clinical improvement. Lateralized RSA implants have conferred superior outcomes compared with the original Grammont design in patients with nontraumatic indications. However, in the setting of a PHF, lateralized components can place increased tension across the tuberosity fracture site and potentially compromise tuberosity healing and outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the effect of implant design on clinical outcomes after RSA for PHFs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for clinical studies on RSA performed for PHFs that reported implant manufacturer details. Our primary outcomes included postoperative external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), abduction, Constant score, rate of greater tuberosity (GT) healing, and the incidence of complications compared between medialized vs. lateralized global implant design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Globally lateralized RSA cohorts (478 RSAs total with cumulative lateral offset achieved through humeral or glenoid lateralization or both humeral and glenoid lateralization) were found to have a greater mean postoperative Constant score compared with globally medialized (medialized glenoid and medialized humerus) RSA cohorts with 1,494 total medialized RSAs (66 vs. 59, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference regarding mean postoperative ER (30° vs. 22°, p = 0.078), FE (117° vs. 119°, p = 0.708), or abduction (103° vs. 107°, p = 0.377). On meta-regression, neither implant design nor tuberosity status significantly influenced postoperative ER, FE, abduction, or Constant score on meta-regression independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. The rate of GT healing was greater in lateralized compared with medialized RSAs (88% vs. 72%, p < 0.001). On meta-regression, medialized RSA design was associated with a 73% lower odds of GT healing (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.68, p = 0.007) independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lateralized RSA implants conferred no significant functional benefit over medialized implants when used in patients with PHFs.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medialized vs. Lateralized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kara E Holt, Victoria E Bindi, Timothy R Buchanan, Akshay R Reddy, Abtahi Tishad, Persis Desai, Keegan M Hones, Thomas W Wright, Bradley S Schoch, Joseph J King, Kevin A Hao\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly used in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with reliable clinical improvement. Lateralized RSA implants have conferred superior outcomes compared with the original Grammont design in patients with nontraumatic indications. However, in the setting of a PHF, lateralized components can place increased tension across the tuberosity fracture site and potentially compromise tuberosity healing and outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the effect of implant design on clinical outcomes after RSA for PHFs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for clinical studies on RSA performed for PHFs that reported implant manufacturer details. Our primary outcomes included postoperative external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), abduction, Constant score, rate of greater tuberosity (GT) healing, and the incidence of complications compared between medialized vs. lateralized global implant design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Globally lateralized RSA cohorts (478 RSAs total with cumulative lateral offset achieved through humeral or glenoid lateralization or both humeral and glenoid lateralization) were found to have a greater mean postoperative Constant score compared with globally medialized (medialized glenoid and medialized humerus) RSA cohorts with 1,494 total medialized RSAs (66 vs. 59, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference regarding mean postoperative ER (30° vs. 22°, p = 0.078), FE (117° vs. 119°, p = 0.708), or abduction (103° vs. 107°, p = 0.377). On meta-regression, neither implant design nor tuberosity status significantly influenced postoperative ER, FE, abduction, or Constant score on meta-regression independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. The rate of GT healing was greater in lateralized compared with medialized RSAs (88% vs. 72%, p < 0.001). On meta-regression, medialized RSA design was associated with a 73% lower odds of GT healing (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.68, p = 0.007) independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lateralized RSA implants conferred no significant functional benefit over medialized implants when used in patients with PHFs.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Reviews\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00160\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:反向肩关节置换术(RSA)越来越多地用于治疗肱骨近端骨折(phf),并有可靠的临床改善。与最初的gramont设计相比,侧侧RSA植入物在非创伤指征患者中具有更好的结果。然而,在PHF的情况下,侧化组件会增加结节骨折部位的张力,并可能影响结节的愈合和预后。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定植入物设计对phf RSA后临床结果的影响。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价。我们查询了PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane,查询了报道植入物制造商详细信息的phf的RSA临床研究。我们的主要结果包括术后外旋(ER)、前抬(FE)、外展、恒定评分、大结节(GT)愈合率,以及中位和侧位整体种植体设计的并发症发生率。结果:全局侧化RSA队列(共478个RSAs,通过肱骨或盂骨侧化或肱骨和盂骨侧化实现累计侧偏移)与全局中化(盂骨和肱骨中化)RSA队列(共1,494个RSAs)相比,术后平均恒定评分更高(66比59,p = 0.006),但术后平均ER没有显著差异(30°比22°,p = 0.078)。FE(117°vs. 119°,p = 0.708)或外展(103°vs. 107°,p = 0.377)。在meta回归中,植入物设计和结节状态均未显著影响术后ER、FE、外展或独立于平均随访和手术年龄的meta回归常数评分。侧化rsa比中化rsa的GT愈合率更高(88%比72%,p < 0.001)。在meta回归中,与平均随访和手术年龄无关,中等化RSA设计与低73%的GT愈合几率相关(优势比= 0.27,95%可信区间= 0.11-0.68,p = 0.007)。结论:在phf患者中,侧化RSA种植体与中化种植体相比没有显著的功能益处。证据等级:治疗性IV级。参见《作者说明》获得证据等级的完整描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medialized vs. Lateralized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly used in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with reliable clinical improvement. Lateralized RSA implants have conferred superior outcomes compared with the original Grammont design in patients with nontraumatic indications. However, in the setting of a PHF, lateralized components can place increased tension across the tuberosity fracture site and potentially compromise tuberosity healing and outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the effect of implant design on clinical outcomes after RSA for PHFs.

Methods: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for clinical studies on RSA performed for PHFs that reported implant manufacturer details. Our primary outcomes included postoperative external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), abduction, Constant score, rate of greater tuberosity (GT) healing, and the incidence of complications compared between medialized vs. lateralized global implant design.

Results: Globally lateralized RSA cohorts (478 RSAs total with cumulative lateral offset achieved through humeral or glenoid lateralization or both humeral and glenoid lateralization) were found to have a greater mean postoperative Constant score compared with globally medialized (medialized glenoid and medialized humerus) RSA cohorts with 1,494 total medialized RSAs (66 vs. 59, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference regarding mean postoperative ER (30° vs. 22°, p = 0.078), FE (117° vs. 119°, p = 0.708), or abduction (103° vs. 107°, p = 0.377). On meta-regression, neither implant design nor tuberosity status significantly influenced postoperative ER, FE, abduction, or Constant score on meta-regression independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. The rate of GT healing was greater in lateralized compared with medialized RSAs (88% vs. 72%, p < 0.001). On meta-regression, medialized RSA design was associated with a 73% lower odds of GT healing (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.68, p = 0.007) independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery.

Conclusion: Lateralized RSA implants conferred no significant functional benefit over medialized implants when used in patients with PHFs.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
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