{"title":"Experiences and outcomes in shoulder replacements in a district general hospital over 19 years.","authors":"Andrew Peter Dekker, Jamie Hind, Neil Ashwood","doi":"10.5397/cise.2023.01137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the changing experiences of shoulder surgeons working in a district general hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A consecutive series of 395 shoulders (225 male, 170 female) over a 19-year period (2000-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were analyzed. Outcome measures were length of stay, operating time, satisfaction visual analog score (VAS), pain VAS, Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, range of movement, complications, and implant survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of a diagnosis of osteoarthritis as the surgical indication increased over time. The number of cases by surgeon per year increased from three cases in 2,000 to a peak of 33 in 2011. Up to seven implant manufacturers were used. The incidence of hemiarthroplasties decreased, and more numerous reverse polarity and anatomic arthroplasties were performed (P<0.001). More glenoid and humeral components were cemented and more short-stem implants were used in later years (P<0.001). Length of stay was a median of 1 day with a trend towards daytime surgery in recent years. Patients were satisfied (VAS 8/10) and OSS improved by 8 points on average throughout the observation period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite frequent introductions of new implants, patient outcome, satisfaction, and complication rates remained good. There appears to be a need for large-scale, generalizable studies to understand why technological advancements leading to changes in implants do not influence clinical outcomes. Level of evidence: III.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393443/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2023.01137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the changing experiences of shoulder surgeons working in a district general hospital.
Methods: A consecutive series of 395 shoulders (225 male, 170 female) over a 19-year period (2000-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were analyzed. Outcome measures were length of stay, operating time, satisfaction visual analog score (VAS), pain VAS, Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, range of movement, complications, and implant survival.
Results: The incidence of a diagnosis of osteoarthritis as the surgical indication increased over time. The number of cases by surgeon per year increased from three cases in 2,000 to a peak of 33 in 2011. Up to seven implant manufacturers were used. The incidence of hemiarthroplasties decreased, and more numerous reverse polarity and anatomic arthroplasties were performed (P<0.001). More glenoid and humeral components were cemented and more short-stem implants were used in later years (P<0.001). Length of stay was a median of 1 day with a trend towards daytime surgery in recent years. Patients were satisfied (VAS 8/10) and OSS improved by 8 points on average throughout the observation period.
Conclusions: Despite frequent introductions of new implants, patient outcome, satisfaction, and complication rates remained good. There appears to be a need for large-scale, generalizable studies to understand why technological advancements leading to changes in implants do not influence clinical outcomes. Level of evidence: III.