We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with structural versus nonstructural bone graft.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2019 January
BACKGROUND: Revision shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss poses substantial surgical challenges. This study's purpose was to compare radiographic and clinical results of patients requiring structural iliac crest bone autograft (ICBA) for severe bone loss versus patients with less severe bone loss treated with nonstructural bone allograft (NSBA) in the setting of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).
METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 30 patients (70% of the 43 patients who met the inclusion criteria) undergoing revision RSA with ICBA (n = 15) or NSBA (n = 15) between 2007 and 2015 were analyzed at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Radiographic assessment included bone graft integration, bone graft resorption, glenosphere tilt, glenosphere version, and the presence of scapular notching. Clinical assessment included active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, Veterans RAND 12-item health survey, and need for revision surgery.
RESULTS: No radiographic difference was found between the ICBA and NSBA groups with regard to implant position, graft integration, scapular notching, implant shift, or failure of fixation (P > .05). Of 15 patients with ICBA, 14 (93%) had at least partial integration of the bone graft. Some degree of resorption of the bone graft was noted in 6 of 15 patients (40%). There was no significant difference in postoperative active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, or Veterans RAND 12-item health survey score (P > .05 for all comparisons). One patient in the ICBA group underwent revision surgery for glenoid baseplate failure.
CONCLUSION: Revision RSA with glenoid bone grafting resulted in good clinical and radiographic outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients requiring structural ICBA were not at increased risk of component failure, radiographic or clinical complications, or inferior clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 30 patients (70% of the 43 patients who met the inclusion criteria) undergoing revision RSA with ICBA (n = 15) or NSBA (n = 15) between 2007 and 2015 were analyzed at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Radiographic assessment included bone graft integration, bone graft resorption, glenosphere tilt, glenosphere version, and the presence of scapular notching. Clinical assessment included active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, Veterans RAND 12-item health survey, and need for revision surgery.
RESULTS: No radiographic difference was found between the ICBA and NSBA groups with regard to implant position, graft integration, scapular notching, implant shift, or failure of fixation (P > .05). Of 15 patients with ICBA, 14 (93%) had at least partial integration of the bone graft. Some degree of resorption of the bone graft was noted in 6 of 15 patients (40%). There was no significant difference in postoperative active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, or Veterans RAND 12-item health survey score (P > .05 for all comparisons). One patient in the ICBA group underwent revision surgery for glenoid baseplate failure.
CONCLUSION: Revision RSA with glenoid bone grafting resulted in good clinical and radiographic outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients requiring structural ICBA were not at increased risk of component failure, radiographic or clinical complications, or inferior clinical outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app