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