Article

Surgery for Shoulder Osteoarthritis: A Cochrane Systematic Review

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-3408, USA.
The Journal of Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 3.17). 04/2011; 38(4):598-605. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.101008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the benefits and harm of surgery for shoulder osteoarthritis (OA).
We performed a Cochrane Systematic Review of clinical trials of adults with shoulder OA, comparing surgical techniques [total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty, implant types, and fixation] to placebo, sham surgery, nonsurgical modalities, and no treatment. We also reviewed trials that compared various surgical techniques, reporting patient-reported outcomes (pain, function, quality of life, etc.) or revision rates. We calculated the risk ratio for categorical outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% CI.
There were no controlled trials of surgery versus placebo or nonsurgical interventions. Seven studies with 238 patients were included. Two studies compared TSA to hemiarthroplasty (n = 88). Significantly worse scores on the 0-100 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (mean difference, -10.05 at 24-34 mo; 95% CI -18.97 to -1.13; p = 0.03) and a nonsignificant trend toward higher revision rate in hemiarthroplasty compared to TSA (relative risk 6.18; 95% CI 0.77 to 49.52; p = 0.09) were noted. With 1 study providing data (n = 41), no differences were noted between groups for pain scores (mean difference 7.8; 95% CI -5.33 to 20.93), quality of life on Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 physical component summary (mean difference 0.80; 95% CI -6.63 to -8.23), and adverse events (relative risk 1.2; 95% CI 0.4 to 3.8).
TSA was associated with better shoulder function, with no other demonstrable clinical benefits compared to hemiarthroplasty. More studies are needed to compare clinical outcomes between them and comparing shoulder surgery to sham, placebo, and other nonsurgical treatment options.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
79 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose The aim of this study was to conduct a randomised, clinical trial comparing stemmed hemiarthroplasty and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Methods A total of 40 shoulders (35 patients) were randomised to stemmed hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and evaluated three and 12 months postoperatively using the Constant-Murley score (CMS) and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Results There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender or pre-operative scores except for WOOS at baseline. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Significant improvements in CMS and WOOS were observed at one year after both arthroplasty designs. At one year, the mean CMS was 48.9 (range 6-80) after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and 59.1 (range 0-88) after stemmed hemiarthroplasty {mean difference 10.2 [95 % confidence interval (CI) −3.3 to 23.6], P = 0.14}. The mean WOOS was 59.2 (range 5.2-100.0) and 79.4 (range 12.8-98.6), respectively [mean difference 20.2 (95 % CI 3.4-36.9), P = 0.02]. No major complications occurred and there were no revisions. Conclusions The effects of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty tended to be inferior to those of stemmed hemiarthroplasty. It is unclear whether this reflects a real difference in effect or baseline differences due to the limited number of randomised patients. We suggest there is a need for a larger, more definitive trial.
    International Orthopaedics 08/2014; 39(2). DOI:10.1007/s00264-014-2505-9 · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Implant migration, bone mineral density (BMD), length of glenohumeral offset (LGHO), and clinical results were compared for the Copeland (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) and the Global C.A.P. (DePuy Int, Warsaw, IN, USA) humeral head resurfacing implants (HHRIs). Methods The study randomly allocated 32 patients (13 women), mean age 63 years (range, 39-82 years), with shoulder osteoarthritis to a Copeland (n = 14) or Global C.A.P. (n = 18) HHRI. Patients were monitored for 2 years with radiostereometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), and the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS). LGHO was measured preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Results At 2 years, total translation (TT) was 0.48 mm (standard deviation [SD], 0.21 mm) for the Copeland and 0.82 mm (SD, 0.46 mm) for the Global C.A.P. (P = .06). Five HHRI were revised, and in the interval before the last follow-up (revision or 2 years), TT of 0.58 mm (SD, 0.61 mm) for revised HHRI was higher (P = .02) than TT of 0.22 mm (SD, 0.17 mm) in nonrevised HHRI. A comparison of TT at the last follow-up (revision or 2 years) found no difference between the HHRIs (P = .12). Periprosthetic BMD decreased initially but increased continuously after 6 months for both HHRIs. At 2 years, BMD was 48% higher around the Copeland HHRI (P = .005). The mean difference in LGHO was significantly higher for the Copeland than for the Global C.A.P. HHRI (P = .02). Clinical results evaluated with CSS and WOOS improved over time for both implant groups (P < .01), with no differences between the groups. Conclusion Both implants had only little migration and good clinical results. Periprosthetic BMD and LGHO both increased for the Copeland HHRI more than for the Global C.A.P HHRI.
    Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 10/2014; 23(10):1427–1436. DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.012 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many factors influence the outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of RSA depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis, and indication for surgery through a comprehensive, systematic review. A literature search was conducted (1985 to June 2012) using PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCO-SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Levels I-IV evidence, in-vivo human studies (written in English with minimum of 2 years of follow-up and sample size of 10 patients) reporting clinical and/or functional outcomes after RSA were included. The outcomes were analyzed depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis (with medialized or lateralized center of rotation), or indication for surgery. A total of 35 studies were included involving 2049 patients (mean [SD] percentage of females, age, and follow-up of 71.6% [13.4], 71.5 years [3.7], and 43.1 months [18.8], respectively). Studies using deltopectoral approach with lateralized prostheses demonstrated greater improvement in external rotation compared with medialized prostheses with the same approach (mean 22.9° and 5°, respectively). In general, RSA for cuff tear arthropathy demonstrated higher improvements in Constant and American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores, and range of motion compared with revision of anatomic prosthesis, failed rotator cuff repair, and fracture sequelae. Lateralized prostheses provided more improvement in external rotation compared to medialized prostheses. Indications of RSA for cuff tear arthropathy demonstrated higher improvements in the outcomes compared with other indications. RSA demonstrated high patient's satisfaction regardless of the type of prosthesis or indication for surgery. Level IV.
    International Journal of Shoulder Surgery 01/2015; 9(1):24-31. DOI:10.4103/0973-6042.150226 · 0.51 Impact Factor