Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

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

DOI QR Code

Experiences and outcomes in shoulder replacements in a district general hospital over 19 years

  • Andrew Peter Dekker (Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen's Hospital Burton) ;
  • Jamie Hind (Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen's Hospital Burton) ;
  • Neil Ashwood (Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen's Hospital Burton)
  • 투고 : 2023.12.20
  • 심사 : 2024.04.18
  • 발행 : 2024.09.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Jain N, Pietrobon R, Hocker S, Guller U, Shankar A, Higgins LD. The relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and outcomes for shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:496-505. 
  2. Somerson JS, Stein BA, Wirth MA. Distribution of high-volume shoulder arthroplasty surgeons in the united states: data from the 2014 Medicare provider utilization and payment data release. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:e77. 
  3. Gregory T, Hansen U, Emery RJ, Augereau B, Amis AA. Developments in shoulder arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2007;221:87-96. 
  4. Gregory TM, Sankey A, Augereau B, et al. Accuracy of glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty and its effect on clinical and radiological outcome in a retrospective, longitudinal, monocentric open study. PLoS One 2013;8:e75791. 
  5. Mueller M, Hoy G. Soft tissue balancing in total shoulder replacement. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014;7:16-21. 
  6. Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ. The reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:535-9. 
  7. Drake GN, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB. Indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:1526-33. 
  8. Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Fevang BT, et al. A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012;21:1328-35. 
  9. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2009;80:83-91. 
  10. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;(214):160-4. 
  11. Dekker AP, Joshi N, Morgan M, Espag M, Tambe AA, Clark DI. 6-Year clinical results and survival of Copeland Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in a consecutive series of 279 cases. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020;11(Suppl 2):S265-9. 
  12. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970;52:1077-89. 
  13. National Joint Registry (NJR). NJR annual report. NJR; 2023. 
  14. Zhou A, Xu S, Yew KS, Lie DT. Minimal clinically important differences for oxford, constant, and University of California Los Angeles shoulder scores after reverse shoulder arthroplasty to allow interpretation of patient-reported outcome measures and future statistical power analyses. Arthroscopy 2023;39:1405-14. 
  15. Ernstbrunner L, Andronic O, Grubhofer F, Camenzind RS, Wieser K, Gerber C. Long-term results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff dysfunction: a systematic review of longitudinal outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019;28:774-81.