硅树脂桡骨头假体重访:它们在今天的实践中有作用吗?对临床结果的文献进行系统回顾。

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.5397/cise.2022.00990
Erik M van Bussel, Anneluuk L Lindenhovius, Bertram The, Denise Eygendaal
{"title":"硅树脂桡骨头假体重访:它们在今天的实践中有作用吗?对临床结果的文献进行系统回顾。","authors":"Erik M van Bussel,&nbsp;Anneluuk L Lindenhovius,&nbsp;Bertram The,&nbsp;Denise Eygendaal","doi":"10.5397/cise.2022.00990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Silicone radial head prostheses (SRHP) are considered obsolete due to reports of frequent failure and destructive silicone-induced synovitis. Considering the good outcomes of modern non-radial silicone joint implants, the extent of scientific evidence for this negative view is unclear. The aim of this research was to systematically analyze the clinical evidence on complications and outcomes of SRHP and how SRHP compare to both non-SRHP and silicone prostheses of other joints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was conducted through the Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight cohort studies were included, consisting of 142 patients and follow-up periods ranging from 23 months to 8 years. Average patient satisfaction was 86%, range of 71%-100%, and 58 complications were seen, but no cases of synovitis. These outcomes were in line with non-SRHP. Four case series with 11 cases of synovitis were found, all due to implant fractures years to decades after implantation. Six systematic reviews of currently used non-radial silicone joint implants showed excellent outcomes with low complication rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Since SRHP have satisfactory clinical results and an acceptable complication rate when selecting a patient group in suitable condition for surgical indications, it is considered that SRHP can still be chosen as a potential surgical treatment method in current clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":"26 3","pages":"312-322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a0/04/cise-2022-00990.PMC10497923.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Silicone radial head prostheses revisited: do they have a role in today's practice? A systematic review of literature on clinical outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Erik M van Bussel,&nbsp;Anneluuk L Lindenhovius,&nbsp;Bertram The,&nbsp;Denise Eygendaal\",\"doi\":\"10.5397/cise.2022.00990\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Silicone radial head prostheses (SRHP) are considered obsolete due to reports of frequent failure and destructive silicone-induced synovitis. Considering the good outcomes of modern non-radial silicone joint implants, the extent of scientific evidence for this negative view is unclear. The aim of this research was to systematically analyze the clinical evidence on complications and outcomes of SRHP and how SRHP compare to both non-SRHP and silicone prostheses of other joints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was conducted through the Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight cohort studies were included, consisting of 142 patients and follow-up periods ranging from 23 months to 8 years. Average patient satisfaction was 86%, range of 71%-100%, and 58 complications were seen, but no cases of synovitis. These outcomes were in line with non-SRHP. Four case series with 11 cases of synovitis were found, all due to implant fractures years to decades after implantation. Six systematic reviews of currently used non-radial silicone joint implants showed excellent outcomes with low complication rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Since SRHP have satisfactory clinical results and an acceptable complication rate when selecting a patient group in suitable condition for surgical indications, it is considered that SRHP can still be chosen as a potential surgical treatment method in current clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"volume\":\"26 3\",\"pages\":\"312-322\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a0/04/cise-2022-00990.PMC10497923.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2022.00990\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2022.00990","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:硅树脂桡骨头假体(SRHP)被认为是过时的,因为经常有报道失败和破坏性的硅树脂引起的滑膜炎。考虑到现代非放射状硅胶关节植入物的良好效果,这种负面观点的科学证据的程度尚不清楚。本研究的目的是系统分析SRHP的并发症和结果的临床证据,以及SRHP与非SRHP和其他关节硅胶假体的比较。方法:通过Cochrane、PubMed和Embase数据库进行系统的文献综述。结果:纳入8项队列研究,包括142例患者,随访时间从23个月到8年不等。患者平均满意度为86%,71% ~ 100%,并发症58例,无滑膜炎病例。这些结果与非srhp一致。4例11例滑膜炎,均因植入后数年至数十年的骨折所致。目前使用的非放射状硅胶关节植入物的六项系统综述显示了良好的效果和低并发症发生率。结论:在选择适合手术指征条件的患者组时,SRHP具有满意的临床效果和可接受的并发症发生率,因此认为在当前临床实践中仍可选择SRHP作为一种潜在的手术治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Silicone radial head prostheses revisited: do they have a role in today's practice? A systematic review of literature on clinical outcomes.

Background: Silicone radial head prostheses (SRHP) are considered obsolete due to reports of frequent failure and destructive silicone-induced synovitis. Considering the good outcomes of modern non-radial silicone joint implants, the extent of scientific evidence for this negative view is unclear. The aim of this research was to systematically analyze the clinical evidence on complications and outcomes of SRHP and how SRHP compare to both non-SRHP and silicone prostheses of other joints.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted through the Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases.

Results: Eight cohort studies were included, consisting of 142 patients and follow-up periods ranging from 23 months to 8 years. Average patient satisfaction was 86%, range of 71%-100%, and 58 complications were seen, but no cases of synovitis. These outcomes were in line with non-SRHP. Four case series with 11 cases of synovitis were found, all due to implant fractures years to decades after implantation. Six systematic reviews of currently used non-radial silicone joint implants showed excellent outcomes with low complication rates.

Conclusions: Since SRHP have satisfactory clinical results and an acceptable complication rate when selecting a patient group in suitable condition for surgical indications, it is considered that SRHP can still be chosen as a potential surgical treatment method in current clinical practice.

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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Short-term outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with biceps augmentation of subscapularis peel repair. Descriptive analysis of total elbow arthroplasty for distal humerus fractures: 30-day complications. Learning curve for the open Latarjet procedure: a single-surgeon study. Outcomes of lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus latissimus dorsi transfer for external rotation deficit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reconsidering the clinical outcomes of the stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty design implant.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1