Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2024; 59(02): e254-e259
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770976
Artigo Original
Mão

O tamanho da glenosfera não importa na artroplastia total reversa de ombro

Article in several languages: português | English
Akshar V. Patel 
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Christopher A. White
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Troy Li
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Bradford O. Parsons
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Evan L. Flatow
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Paul J. Cagle
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
› Author Affiliations Suporte Financeiro Evan L. Flatow, MD: Innomed: royalties de propriedade intelectual; Springer: royalties de publicação, suporte financeiro ou material; Zimmer: royalties de propriedade intelectual.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Resumo

Objetivo Até agora, poucos estudos relataram os desfechos da artroplastia total reversa (ATR) de ombro com coortes estratificadas pelo tamanho da glenosfera. O objetivo deste estudo é investigar o papel do tamanho da glenosfera nos desfechos pós-operatórios.

Métodos O estudo incluiu pacientes submetidos à ATR de ombro desde 1987 com acompanhamento mínimo de 2,0 anos. Os pacientes foram estratificados em duas coortes com base no tamanho da glenosfera (36 mm ou 40 mm). A amplitude de movimento, os desfechos relatados pelo paciente e as variáveis radiográficas (morfologia pré-operatória da glenoide, incisura escapular e instabilidade do úmero) foram avaliados.

Resultados Todas as medidas de amplitude de movimento, à exceção da rotação interna, melhoraram de forma significativa entre o período pré-operatório e pós-operatório nas duas coortes. Não houve diferenças significativas na amplitude de movimento pós-operatória, pontuação da American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) ou escala visual analógica (EVA) de dor entre as duas coortes. De modo geral, a elevação anterior melhorou para 134° ± 16° na coorte de 36 mm e 133° ± 14° na coorte de 40 mm (p = 0,47). A rotação externa melhorou para 37° ± 13° em pacientes da coorte de 36 mm e 35° ± 19° em pacientes da coorte de 40 mm (p = 0,58). A rotação interna aumentou 1,3 níveis vertebrais na coorte de 36 mm e 2,3 níveis vertebrais na coorte de 40 mm. No último acompanhamento, a coorte de 36 mm apresentou EVA de 2 ± 2, ASES de 66 ± 19 e pontuação do Simple Shoulder Test (SST) de 6 ± 3. Da mesma forma, a coorte de 40 mm teve EVA de 2 ± 3, ASES de 77 ± 28 e SST de 9 ± 3.

Conclusões A ATR de ombro causa melhoras sustentadas da amplitude de movimento e função articular independentemente do tamanho da glenosfera.

Nível de Evidência III.

Palavras-chave

artroplastia - ombro - escápula - articulação do ombro - amplitude de movimento articular

Trabalho desenvolvido no Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos.




Publication History

Received: 28 October 2022

Accepted: 24 January 2023

Article published online:
10 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Bacle G, Nové-Josserand L, Garaud P, Walch G. Long-Term Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Follow-up of a Previous Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (06) 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Shields E, Koueiter DM, Wiater MJ. Rate of improvement in outcomes measures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a longitudinal study with 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Arthroplasty 2019; 3: 247154921986144
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 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 (04) 774-781
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22 (09) 1199-1208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Jobin CM, Galdi B, Anakwenze OA, Ahmad CS, Levine WN. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of proximal humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (03) 190-201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Drake GN, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB. Indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (06) 1526-1533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (14) 1297-1304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Urch E, Dines JS, Dines DM. Emerging Indications for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2016; 65: 157-169
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lévigne C, Chelli M, Johnston TR. et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis: survival and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30 (10) 2312-2324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Day JS, Paxton ES, Lau E, Gordon VA, Abboud JA, Williams GR. Use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (05) 766-772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Westermann RW, Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Wolf BR, Hettrich CM. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States: A Comparison of National Volume, Patient Demographics, Complications, and Surgical Indications. Iowa Orthop J 2015; 35: 1-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Rauck RC, Eck EP, Chang B. et al. Survivorship of a Medialized Glenoid and Lateralized Onlay Humerus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is High at Midterm Follow-up. HSS J 2020; 16 (Suppl. 02) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Patel AV, Matijakovich DJ, Brochin RL. et al. Mid-term outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with latissimus dorsi transfer. Shoulder Elbow 2022; 14 (03) 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Mollon B, Mahure SA, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD. Impact of glenosphere size on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 297 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (05) 763-771
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Müller AM, Born M, Jung C. et al. Glenosphere size in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is larger better for external rotation and abduction strength?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27 (01) 44-52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Werner BS, Chaoui J, Walch G. Glenosphere design affects range of movement and risk of friction-type scapular impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (09) 1182-1186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Haidamous G, Lädermann A, Hartzler RU. et al. Radiographic parameters associated with excellent versus poor range of motion outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow 2022; 14 (01) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Schoch BS, Vasilopoulos T, LaChaud G. et al. Optimal glenosphere size cannot be determined by patient height. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29 (02) 258-265
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Langohr GDG, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (06) 972-979
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Sabesan VJ, Lombardo DJ, Shahriar R, Petersen-Fitts GR, Wiater JM. The effect of glenosphere size on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 2016; 100 (02) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Amroodi MN, Behshad V, Motaghi P. Long-term Results, Functional Outcomes and Complications after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Neglected and Displaced Greater Tuberosity of Humerus Fractures. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2016; 4 (04) 330-336
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14 (06) 756-760
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sanchez-Sotelo J, O'Driscoll SW, Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of cemented humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 10 (06) 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Torrens C, Guirro P, Miquel J, Santana F. Influence of glenosphere size on the development of scapular notching: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (11) 1735-1741
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar