Cargando…

Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

Glenoid bone loss presents a challenging dilemma, particularly in the setting of failed arthroplasty requiring conversion to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of our systematic review was to examine the success and failure of biologic glenoid bone grafting to address vault defici...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fliegel, Brian E., DeBernardis, Dennis, Ford, Elizabeth, Favorito, Paul, McMillan, Sean
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37588059
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xrrt.2022.10.005
_version_ 1785090057472835584
author Fliegel, Brian E.
DeBernardis, Dennis
Ford, Elizabeth
Favorito, Paul
McMillan, Sean
author_facet Fliegel, Brian E.
DeBernardis, Dennis
Ford, Elizabeth
Favorito, Paul
McMillan, Sean
author_sort Fliegel, Brian E.
collection PubMed
description Glenoid bone loss presents a challenging dilemma, particularly in the setting of failed arthroplasty requiring conversion to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of our systematic review was to examine the success and failure of biologic glenoid bone grafting to address vault deficiencies in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty conversion to rTSA. Twelve articles were included and a complete PUBMED search. Inclusion criteria included glenoid bone grafting for conversion of failed arthroplasty and a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Exclusion criteria included grafting for primary rTSA, and re-revision for infection or humeral loosening. Failures were defined as failure of the graft to radiographically incorporate, symptomatic base plate loosening, and need for further surgical re-revision. Two hundred patients were identified across the 12 articles. Eighteen percent (36/200) of all cases demonstrated failure to radiographically incorporate. Thirteen percent (25/200) of all grafting cases required re-revision due to symptomatic failure (pain or functional deterioration). Femoral shaft demonstrated the highest failure rate at 88% (7/8). Grafting for glenoid bone loss in the setting of conversion to rTSA has an 82% rate of success across autograft and allograft utilization. Further studies are needed to better define the success of autografting versus allografting in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty conversion to rTSA with glenoid bone loss.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10426468
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104264682023-08-16 Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review Fliegel, Brian E. DeBernardis, Dennis Ford, Elizabeth Favorito, Paul McMillan, Sean JSES Rev Rep Tech Review Glenoid bone loss presents a challenging dilemma, particularly in the setting of failed arthroplasty requiring conversion to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of our systematic review was to examine the success and failure of biologic glenoid bone grafting to address vault deficiencies in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty conversion to rTSA. Twelve articles were included and a complete PUBMED search. Inclusion criteria included glenoid bone grafting for conversion of failed arthroplasty and a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Exclusion criteria included grafting for primary rTSA, and re-revision for infection or humeral loosening. Failures were defined as failure of the graft to radiographically incorporate, symptomatic base plate loosening, and need for further surgical re-revision. Two hundred patients were identified across the 12 articles. Eighteen percent (36/200) of all cases demonstrated failure to radiographically incorporate. Thirteen percent (25/200) of all grafting cases required re-revision due to symptomatic failure (pain or functional deterioration). Femoral shaft demonstrated the highest failure rate at 88% (7/8). Grafting for glenoid bone loss in the setting of conversion to rTSA has an 82% rate of success across autograft and allograft utilization. Further studies are needed to better define the success of autografting versus allografting in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty conversion to rTSA with glenoid bone loss. Elsevier 2022-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10426468/ /pubmed/37588059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xrrt.2022.10.005 Text en © 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Fliegel, Brian E.
DeBernardis, Dennis
Ford, Elizabeth
Favorito, Paul
McMillan, Sean
Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
title Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
title_full Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
title_fullStr Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
title_short Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
title_sort biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37588059
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xrrt.2022.10.005
work_keys_str_mv AT fliegelbriane biologicgraftaugmentationforglenoidbonelossinconversionoffailedanatomictoreverseshoulderarthroplastyasystematicreview
AT debernardisdennis biologicgraftaugmentationforglenoidbonelossinconversionoffailedanatomictoreverseshoulderarthroplastyasystematicreview
AT fordelizabeth biologicgraftaugmentationforglenoidbonelossinconversionoffailedanatomictoreverseshoulderarthroplastyasystematicreview
AT favoritopaul biologicgraftaugmentationforglenoidbonelossinconversionoffailedanatomictoreverseshoulderarthroplastyasystematicreview
AT mcmillansean biologicgraftaugmentationforglenoidbonelossinconversionoffailedanatomictoreverseshoulderarthroplastyasystematicreview