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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |