Cargando…

A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a lateralized glenoid construct with either a central screw or post. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) with minimum 2-year clinical followup....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bercik, Michael J., Werner, Brian C., Sears, Benjamin W., Gobezie, Reuben, Lederman, Evan, Denard, Patrick J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9267675/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35807048
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133763
_version_ 1784743790485962752
author Bercik, Michael J.
Werner, Brian C.
Sears, Benjamin W.
Gobezie, Reuben
Lederman, Evan
Denard, Patrick J.
author_facet Bercik, Michael J.
Werner, Brian C.
Sears, Benjamin W.
Gobezie, Reuben
Lederman, Evan
Denard, Patrick J.
author_sort Bercik, Michael J.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a lateralized glenoid construct with either a central screw or post. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) with minimum 2-year clinical followup. All RSAs implanted had a 135° neck shaft angle (NSA) and a modular circular baseplate. The patients were divided into two cohorts based on the type of central fixation for their glenoid baseplates (central post (CP) vs. central screw (CS)). The clinical outcomes, rates of revisions, and available radiographs were evaluated. Results: In total, 212 patients met the study criteria. Postoperatively, both groups improved over their preoperative baseline. There were no significant differences between the cohorts in any PROs at 2 years postoperatively. No findings of gross loosening were identified in either cohort. Implant survival was 98.6% at 2 years. Conclusions: When using a lateralized glenoid implant with a 135° NSA inlay humeral component, both central post and central screw baseplate fixation provide good clinical outcomes, survivorship, and improvements in ROM at 2 years. There is no difference in loosening or revision rates between the types of baseplate fixation at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9267675
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92676752022-07-09 A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design Bercik, Michael J. Werner, Brian C. Sears, Benjamin W. Gobezie, Reuben Lederman, Evan Denard, Patrick J. J Clin Med Article The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a lateralized glenoid construct with either a central screw or post. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) with minimum 2-year clinical followup. All RSAs implanted had a 135° neck shaft angle (NSA) and a modular circular baseplate. The patients were divided into two cohorts based on the type of central fixation for their glenoid baseplates (central post (CP) vs. central screw (CS)). The clinical outcomes, rates of revisions, and available radiographs were evaluated. Results: In total, 212 patients met the study criteria. Postoperatively, both groups improved over their preoperative baseline. There were no significant differences between the cohorts in any PROs at 2 years postoperatively. No findings of gross loosening were identified in either cohort. Implant survival was 98.6% at 2 years. Conclusions: When using a lateralized glenoid implant with a 135° NSA inlay humeral component, both central post and central screw baseplate fixation provide good clinical outcomes, survivorship, and improvements in ROM at 2 years. There is no difference in loosening or revision rates between the types of baseplate fixation at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. MDPI 2022-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9267675/ /pubmed/35807048 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133763 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Bercik, Michael J.
Werner, Brian C.
Sears, Benjamin W.
Gobezie, Reuben
Lederman, Evan
Denard, Patrick J.
A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design
title A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design
title_full A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design
title_fullStr A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design
title_short A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design
title_sort comparison of central screw versus post for glenoid baseplate fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a lateralized glenoid design
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9267675/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35807048
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133763
work_keys_str_mv AT bercikmichaelj acomparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT wernerbrianc acomparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT searsbenjaminw acomparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT gobeziereuben acomparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT ledermanevan acomparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT denardpatrickj acomparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT bercikmichaelj comparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT wernerbrianc comparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT searsbenjaminw comparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT gobeziereuben comparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT ledermanevan comparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign
AT denardpatrickj comparisonofcentralscrewversuspostforglenoidbaseplatefixationinreverseshoulderarthroplastyusingalateralizedglenoiddesign