Is the impact of previous rotator cuff repair on the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty clinically relevant? A systematic review of 2879 shoulders
Alexander N. Berk, Allison J Rao, Kyle K Obana, A. M. Ifarraguerri, David P. Trofa, Patrick M. Connor, Shadley C. Schiffern, Nady Hamid, Bryan M. Saltzman
{"title":"Is the impact of previous rotator cuff repair on the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty clinically relevant? A systematic review of 2879 shoulders","authors":"Alexander N. Berk, Allison J Rao, Kyle K Obana, A. M. Ifarraguerri, David P. Trofa, Patrick M. Connor, Shadley C. Schiffern, Nady Hamid, Bryan M. Saltzman","doi":"10.1177/17585732241268712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) remain inconsistent. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to systematically review the current outcomes literature on RSA in patients with prior RCR and to compare the results with controls without prior RCR. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and outcome studies reporting on functional and clinical outcomes were included. A total of 11 studies encompassing 2879 shoulders were included. Improvements in postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the baseline were higher in controls including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (47.0 vs 39.5), Simple Shoulder Test (6.0 vs 4.9), Constant score (32.6 vs 26.4), and Visual Analog Scale for pain (−5.6 vs −4.9). Improvement in range of motion was greater in the control group, including external rotation (17° vs 11°), anterior elevation (56° vs 43°), and abduction (52° vs 43°). The overall complication rate (8% vs 5%) and revision rate (3% vs 1%) were higher in the RCR group. Differences in postoperative PROs and improvement from the baseline demonstrate a trend toward lower outcomes in patients with prior RCR but may be below the minimal clinically import difference. IV; systematic review","PeriodicalId":507613,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder & Elbow","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder & Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241268712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) remain inconsistent. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to systematically review the current outcomes literature on RSA in patients with prior RCR and to compare the results with controls without prior RCR. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and outcome studies reporting on functional and clinical outcomes were included. A total of 11 studies encompassing 2879 shoulders were included. Improvements in postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the baseline were higher in controls including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (47.0 vs 39.5), Simple Shoulder Test (6.0 vs 4.9), Constant score (32.6 vs 26.4), and Visual Analog Scale for pain (−5.6 vs −4.9). Improvement in range of motion was greater in the control group, including external rotation (17° vs 11°), anterior elevation (56° vs 43°), and abduction (52° vs 43°). The overall complication rate (8% vs 5%) and revision rate (3% vs 1%) were higher in the RCR group. Differences in postoperative PROs and improvement from the baseline demonstrate a trend toward lower outcomes in patients with prior RCR but may be below the minimal clinically import difference. IV; systematic review
曾接受过肩袖修复术(RCR)的患者接受反向肩关节置换术(RSA)的结果仍不一致。因此,本研究的目的是系统回顾目前关于曾接受过肩袖修补术(RCR)的患者接受反向肩关节置换术(RSA)的结果文献,并将结果与未接受过肩袖修补术的对照组进行比较。本研究对相关文献进行了系统性回顾,并纳入了报告功能和临床结果的研究。共纳入了 11 项研究,涉及 2879 个肩关节。对照组患者的术后患者报告结果(PROs)较基线有更大改善,包括美国肩肘外科医生评分(47.0 vs 39.5)、简单肩关节测试(6.0 vs 4.9)、Constant评分(32.6 vs 26.4)和疼痛视觉模拟量表(-5.6 vs -4.9)。对照组的活动范围改善幅度更大,包括外旋(17° vs 11°)、前抬(56° vs 43°)和外展(52° vs 43°)。RCR 组的总体并发症发生率(8% 对 5%)和翻修率(3% 对 1%)更高。术后 PROs 的差异以及与基线相比的改善情况表明,曾接受过 RCR 的患者的预后有降低的趋势,但可能低于最小临床意义差异。IV;系统综述