根据患者身高匹配关节囊大小是否能改善反向全肩关节置换术后的疗效?

William Levitt, Chris Roche, J. Elwell, Oliver Donaldson
{"title":"根据患者身高匹配关节囊大小是否能改善反向全肩关节置换术后的疗效?","authors":"William Levitt, Chris Roche, J. Elwell, Oliver Donaldson","doi":"10.1177/17585732241232135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Optimal biomechanics in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) are still a topic of debate. Although larger glenospheres have been linked with a theoretical improvement in the range of movement, results from clinical studies are mixed. We hypothesised that matching glenosphere diameter to patient height would result in greater improvements in post-operative range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). An international database of rTSAs was analysed. After exclusions, 3318 rTSA patients were classified as short (<158 cm), average (158–173 cm) or tall(>173 cm). Outcomes were stratified for glenosphere size (small≤38 mm, large≥40 mm). Results were compared preoperatively and at 2 years. In short patients glenosphere diameter had no statistically significant impact on the degree of post-operative improvement for any ROM or PROM. Average height patients treated with small glenospheres had significantly more improvement in internal rotation (1.3 vs 1.0, p = 0.01), VAS pain (5.3 vs 4.8, p = 0.002), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (47.8 vs 45.2, p = 0.03) and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (30.9 vs 28.2, p = 0.01) but significantly less improvement in constant score (31.7 vs 35.3, p = 0.009). Tall patients treated with small glenospheres had significantly more improvement in external rotation (21.2 vs 16.4, p = 0.01) and VAS pain scores (4.7 vs 4.3, p = 0.04). While most significant differences favoured small glenospheres, the magnitude of these differences was small. Overall, patients of all heights can expect similar clinical improvements irrespective of glenosphere size.","PeriodicalId":507613,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder &amp; Elbow","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does matching glenosphere size to patient height improve outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?\",\"authors\":\"William Levitt, Chris Roche, J. Elwell, Oliver Donaldson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17585732241232135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Optimal biomechanics in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) are still a topic of debate. Although larger glenospheres have been linked with a theoretical improvement in the range of movement, results from clinical studies are mixed. We hypothesised that matching glenosphere diameter to patient height would result in greater improvements in post-operative range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). An international database of rTSAs was analysed. After exclusions, 3318 rTSA patients were classified as short (<158 cm), average (158–173 cm) or tall(>173 cm). Outcomes were stratified for glenosphere size (small≤38 mm, large≥40 mm). Results were compared preoperatively and at 2 years. In short patients glenosphere diameter had no statistically significant impact on the degree of post-operative improvement for any ROM or PROM. Average height patients treated with small glenospheres had significantly more improvement in internal rotation (1.3 vs 1.0, p = 0.01), VAS pain (5.3 vs 4.8, p = 0.002), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (47.8 vs 45.2, p = 0.03) and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (30.9 vs 28.2, p = 0.01) but significantly less improvement in constant score (31.7 vs 35.3, p = 0.009). Tall patients treated with small glenospheres had significantly more improvement in external rotation (21.2 vs 16.4, p = 0.01) and VAS pain scores (4.7 vs 4.3, p = 0.04). While most significant differences favoured small glenospheres, the magnitude of these differences was small. Overall, patients of all heights can expect similar clinical improvements irrespective of glenosphere size.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Shoulder &amp; Elbow\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Shoulder &amp; Elbow\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241232135\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder &amp; Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241232135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

反向全肩关节置换术(rTSA)的最佳生物力学仍是一个争论不休的话题。虽然理论上较大的关节囊可改善活动范围,但临床研究的结果却不尽相同。我们的假设是,将关节盂直径与患者身高相匹配,将使术后活动范围(ROM)和患者报告结果(PROMs)得到更大的改善。我们对rTSAs的国际数据库进行了分析。经排除后,有3318名rTSA患者被归类为矮个子(173厘米)。结果按肾盂大小分层(小≤38毫米,大≥40毫米)。比较了术前和术后两年的结果。在矮个子患者中,关节囊直径对术后任何ROM或PROM的改善程度均无统计学意义。平均身高的患者接受小关节囊治疗后,在内旋转(1.3 vs 1.0,p = 0.01)、VAS疼痛(5.3 vs 4.8,p = 0.002)、美国肩肘外科医生(47.8 vs 45.2,p = 0.03)和肩关节成形术智能(30.9 vs 28.2,p = 0.01)方面的改善程度明显更高,但在恒定评分(31.7 vs 35.3,p = 0.009)方面的改善程度明显更低(31.7 vs 35.3,p = 0.009)。接受小型盂成形术的高个子患者在外侧旋转(21.2 vs 16.4,p = 0.01)和VAS疼痛评分(4.7 vs 4.3,p = 0.04)方面的改善幅度明显更大。虽然大多数明显的差异倾向于小关节球,但这些差异的幅度很小。总体而言,无论玻璃球大小如何,所有身高的患者都能获得相似的临床改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Does matching glenosphere size to patient height improve outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?
Optimal biomechanics in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) are still a topic of debate. Although larger glenospheres have been linked with a theoretical improvement in the range of movement, results from clinical studies are mixed. We hypothesised that matching glenosphere diameter to patient height would result in greater improvements in post-operative range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). An international database of rTSAs was analysed. After exclusions, 3318 rTSA patients were classified as short (<158 cm), average (158–173 cm) or tall(>173 cm). Outcomes were stratified for glenosphere size (small≤38 mm, large≥40 mm). Results were compared preoperatively and at 2 years. In short patients glenosphere diameter had no statistically significant impact on the degree of post-operative improvement for any ROM or PROM. Average height patients treated with small glenospheres had significantly more improvement in internal rotation (1.3 vs 1.0, p = 0.01), VAS pain (5.3 vs 4.8, p = 0.002), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (47.8 vs 45.2, p = 0.03) and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (30.9 vs 28.2, p = 0.01) but significantly less improvement in constant score (31.7 vs 35.3, p = 0.009). Tall patients treated with small glenospheres had significantly more improvement in external rotation (21.2 vs 16.4, p = 0.01) and VAS pain scores (4.7 vs 4.3, p = 0.04). While most significant differences favoured small glenospheres, the magnitude of these differences was small. Overall, patients of all heights can expect similar clinical improvements irrespective of glenosphere size.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is the impact of previous rotator cuff repair on the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty clinically relevant? A systematic review of 2879 shoulders Outcomes of press-fit radial head arthroplasty in unconstructable radial head fractures with associated elbow injuries: An average 5-year follow up Racial disparity in postoperative complications following shoulder arthroplasty (SA): A systematic review and meta-analysis Glenoid notching after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: The influence of different neck-shaft angles Worse postoperative outcomes and higher reoperation in smokers compared to nonsmokers for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair
×
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