Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

대한견·주관절의학회 (Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus bilateral anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review

  • Mohammad Daher (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) ;
  • Mohamad Y. Fares (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) ;
  • Jonathan Koa (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) ;
  • Jaspal Singh (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) ;
  • Joseph Abboud (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center)
  • 투고 : 2023.05.01
  • 심사 : 2023.06.13
  • 발행 : 2024.06.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: As the population is aging and indications are expanding, shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more frequent, especially bilateral staged replacement. However, surgeons are hesitant to use bilateral reverse prostheses due to potential limitations on activities of daily living. Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare bilateral anatomic to bilateral reverse shoulder implants. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched until April 2023. The clinical outcomes consisted of postoperative functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], Physical Component Score [PCS], Mental Component Score, and Simple Shoulder Test), pain, and range of motion (external rotation and forward elevation). Three studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results: Bilateral anatomic implants had better postoperative functional outcomes and range of motion, but no significant difference was seen in postoperative pain when compared to the reverse prosthesis. Better ASES score, SANE score, and PCS as well as better external rotation and forward elevation were seen in the bilateral anatomic shoulder replacement group, but no significant difference in pain levels was seen between the two groups Conclusions: The results may be explained by the lower baseline seen in the reverse prosthesis group, which may be due to an older population and different indications. Nevertheless, more randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Level of evidence: III.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:471-9.
  2. Fehringer EV, Kopjar B, Boorman RS, Churchill RS, Smith KL, Matsen FA. Characterizing the functional improvement after total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84:1349-53.
  3. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004;13:604-13.
  4. Gerber C, Pennington SD, Nyffeler RW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009;17:284-95.
  5. Klein SM, Dunning P, Mulieri P, Pupello D, Downes K, Frankle MA. Effects of acquired glenoid bone defects on surgical technique and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:1144-54.
  6. Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency: a minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1697-705.
  7. Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Lazarus MD, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Namdari S. Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:1860-7.
  8. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:527-40.
  9. Smith CD, Guyver P, Bunker TD. Indications for reverse shoulder replacement: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94:577-83.
  10. Cox RM, Brolin TJ, Padegimas EM, et al. Outcomes of bilateral shoulder arthroplasties: a comparison of bilateral total shoulder arthroplasties and bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Surg 2019;11:316-24.
  11. Levy O, Walecka J, Arealis G, et al. Bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-functional outcome and activities of daily living. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:e85-96.
  12. Mellano CR, Kupfer N, Thorsness R, et al. Functional results of bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:990-6.
  13. Stevens CG, Struk AM, Wright TW. The functional impact of bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:1341-8.
  14. Wirth B, Kolling C, Schwyzer HK, Flury M, Audige L. Risk of insufficient internal rotation after bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and patient-reported outcome in 57 patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:1146-54.
  15. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.
  16. Kurowicki J, Triplet JJ, Rosas S, Berglund DD, Horn B, Levy JC. Comparative outcomes of various combinations of bilateral shoulder arthroplasty. Hand (N Y) 2020;15:707-12.
  17. Welborn BT, Butler RB, Dumas BP, Mock L, Messerschmidt CA, Friedman RJ. Patient reported outcome measures of bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to bilateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop 2020;17:83-6.
  18. Triplet JJ, Everding NG, Levy JC, et al. Anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients older than 80 years. Orthopedics 2015;38:e904-10.
  19. Samitier G, Alentorn-Geli E, Torrens C, Wright TW. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 1: systematic review of clinical and functional outcomes. Int J Shoulder Surg 2015;9:24-31.