Open Access
Review
Table 2
Detailed data on ROM, strength, functional/clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and complications in RSA.
| Study | ROM | Strength | Functional/Clinical outcomes | Radiographic outcomes | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yokoya et al. [35] | FF, IR, ER | – | JOA | AP, axillary, scapular Y | – |
| Not improve | Not improve | Cortical thinning and osteopenia: 50.3% | |||
| Calcar osteolysis: 34.8% | |||||
| Great tuberosity: 29.6% | |||||
| Nourissat et al. [36] | – | – | Constant | AP, lateral | Dislocation (5.5%) |
| ↓ in patients with resorption | Cortical contact: 79% | ||||
| ASES | Humeral resorption: 21% | ||||
| Erickson et al. [37] | FF, IR, ER | – | ASES, WOOS, VAS | Grashey, axillary | Short-stem: |
| Short stem: ↑FF, IR | Short stem had better scores | Short stem: ↑FRmet, FRdia | Periprosthetic fracture (0.4%) | ||
| Revision (0.3%) | |||||
| Standard-stem: | |||||
| Infection (0.8%) | |||||
| Revision (0.4%) | |||||
| Erickson et al. [29] | FF, IR, ER | – | ASES, WOOS, SANE, Neer, VAS | Grashey, axillary | – |
| More IR in short-stem | Less VAS, better ASES and WOOS in short-stem vs. standard-stem | Higher FR in standard-stem | |||
| Valgus alignment: 8.6% (standard-stem) vs. 2.2% (short-stem) | |||||
| Calcar osteolysis: 12.9% (standard-stem) | |||||
| Giordano et al. [11] | FF, IR, ER, Abd | Handheld dynamometer | Constant, ASES, VAS | AP, IR, ER | Short-onlay-stem: |
| Improve | ↑post-op. | Improve | Scapular notcing: 35.2% (short stem) and 23.8 (long stem) | Loosening, glenoid (2.9%) | |
| Dislocation (2.9%) | |||||
| Long-inlay-stem: | |||||
| Infection (2.4%) | |||||
| Dislocation (2.4%) | |||||
| Kim et al. [12] | FF, IR, ER | – | Constant, ASES, VAS | AP, axillary, lateral | Low FR (19.6%): |
| High FR: ↑FF, IR | Improve | Low FR: ↓ stress shielding | Acromial fracture (3.9%) | ||
| High FR: ↑ASES | Persistent pain (3.9%) | ||||
| ROM difficulty (11.8%) | |||||
| High FR (20.8%): | |||||
| Acromial fracture (3.8%) | |||||
| Persistent pain (%) | |||||
| ROM difficulty (9.8%) | |||||
| Kramer et al. [13] | – | – | Constant | AP, axillary, Neer | Non-cemented: |
| Improve | Great tuberosity healing: 71% (non-cemented), 79% (cemented) | Revision (5.9%) | |||
| Lesser tuberosity healing: 82% (non-cemented), 94% (cemented) | Cemented: | ||||
| Scapular notching: 6% (non-cemented), 18% (cemented) | Revision (5.9%) | ||||
| Lopiz et al. [14] | FF, IR, ER, Abd | – | Constant, ASES | AP, axillary | Non-cemented (8.6%) |
| Cemented: ↑ FF (127° vs 108° in non-cemented) | Not differences cemented vs. non-cemented | Radiolucent lines: 17.8% (cemented), 8.3% (non-cemented) | Cemented (17.7%) | ||
| Tuberosity healing: 64% (cemented), 91% (non-cemented) | |||||
| Valenti et al. [15] | FF, IR, ER, Abd | – | Constant, VAS, SSV | AP, axillary, IR, ER | – |
| Improve | Improve | Radiolucent lines: only cemented | |||
| Tuberosity resorption: non-cemented | |||||
| Stress shielding: non-cemented | |||||
| Mazaleyrat et al. [4] | – | – | – | AP, axillary | Non-cemented (8.5%) |
| Tuberosity resorption: cemented > non-cemented | Cemented (4.2%) | ||||
| Mazaleyrat et al. [28] | – | – | – | AP, axillary | Non-cemented (5.4%): |
| Tuberosity resorption: 59% (non-cemented), 30% (cemented) | Periprosthetic fracture (3.6%) | ||||
| Stress shielding: 39% (non-cemented) | Humeral loosening (1.8%) | ||||
| Scapular notching: 41% (both non-cemented and cemented) | Cemented (1.8%): | ||||
| Humeral loosening (1.8%) | |||||
| Nagase et al. [31] | FF, IR, ER, Abd | – | Constant, Shoulder36 | Scapular Y | 0% |
| ↑ FF, Abd | Improve | Stress shielding: 21.4% | |||
| ↓ ER | No loosening | ||||
| No heterotopic ossification | |||||
| Polisetty et al. [16] | FF, IR, ER | – | ASES, VAS, SST | AP, scapular Y | Inlay design: |
| Onlay: greater FF and ER | No differences between inlay and onlay humeral design | Tuberosity and calcar resorption: 73.9% (onlay design) | Scapular notching (8.7%) | ||
| Acromial fracture (8.7%) | |||||
| Onlay design: | |||||
| Scapular notching (8.7%) | |||||
| Acromial fracture (13.6%) | |||||
| Abdic et al. [17] | – | – | – | AP | – |
| Malaligned: larger stem and ↑ FR | |||||
| Brolin et al. [18] | – | – | – | AP | Cemented: |
| Osteolysis: higher in cemented | Humeral loosening (1.7%) | ||||
| Stress shielding: higher in non-cemented | |||||
| Denard et al. [19] | FF, ER | – | ASES, VAS, SST, SANE | Grashey | Total (8.4%): |
| High adaptive changes: 3.2% (non-cemented) | Infection (10%) | ||||
| Stiffness (10%) | |||||
| Instability (10%) | |||||
| Improve | Improve | Calcar osteolysis: 43% (non-cemented), 58% (cemented) | Scapular fracture (50%) | ||
| Persistent pain (10%) | |||||
| Popping (10%) | |||||
| Revision (2.5%) | |||||
| Inoue et al. [20] | – | – | – | AP | – |
| ↑ bone resorption in greater tuberosity, lateral diaphysis, calcar | |||||
| Aibinder et al. [21] | FF, IR, ER | – | ASES, Neer | AP | Total (9%) both TSA and RSA: |
| Improve | ↑ ASES | Stress shielding: 14% | Infection (33.3%) | ||
| Excellent Neer (41%) | Calcar resorption: 23% | Fracture of humeral tray (22.3%) | |||
| Scapular notching: 5% | Glenoid loosening (11.1%) | ||||
| Instability (33.3%) | |||||
| Merolla et al. [22] | FF, IR, Abd | – | Constant, VAS | Grashey, axillary, scapular Y | Inlay design: |
| Improve | ↑ Constant | Glenoid radiolucency: inlay > onlay | Dislocation (5.6%) | ||
| ↓ VAS | Scapular notching: 39% (inlay), 5% (onlay) | Instability (2.8%) | |||
| Humeral radiolucency: 25% (inlay), 10% (onlay) | Onlay design: | ||||
| Cortical thinning, spot weld and tuberosity resorption: inlay > onlay | Scapular fracture (5.3%) | ||||
| Acromial fracture (2.6%) | |||||
| Infection (7.9%) | |||||
| Revision (2.6%) | |||||
| Raiss et al. [38] | – | – | – | AP, 3 different rotation views | Total (7.8%): |
| FR influenced the radiographic changes | Infections (2.6%) | ||||
| Cortical contact led to high bone adaptations | Dislocation (1.3%) | ||||
| Bone adaptations: female > male | Acromial fracture (2.6%) | ||||
| Harmsen and Norris [24] | FF, ER, Abd | Abd. strength in scapular plane improve (dynamometer) | ASES, VAS, SANE | AP, axillary, scapular Y | Total (15.1%): |
| Improve | ↑ ASES, SANE | Radiolucent lines (met): 97.4% | Acromial/scapular fracture (19.4%) | ||
| ↓ VAS | Cortical resorption: no | Deep infection (19.4%) | |||
| Osteolysis: no | Dislocation (13.9%) | ||||
| Transient neuropathy (11.1%) | |||||
| Superficial infection (8.3%) | |||||
| Periprosthetic fracture (2.8%) | |||||
| Humeral shaft fracture (2.8%) | |||||
| Malposition (2.8%) | |||||
| Retained drill fragment (2.8%) | |||||
| Weber-Spickschen et al. [25] | – | – | ASES, Oxford, WOOS, SSV, VAS | AP, axillary, scapular Y | Dislocation (7.1%) |
| ↑ ASES, Oxford, WOOS, SSV | Radiolucent lines: 0% (glenoid), 7.1% (humeral stem) | ||||
| ↓ VAS | Stress shielding: 14.3% | ||||
| Resorption: no | |||||
| Loosening: no | |||||
| Al-Hadithy et al. [9] | FF, IR, ER, Abd | – | Constant, Oxford | AP, axillary, lateral | Total (10.8%): |
| Improve | ↑ Constant, Oxford | Scapular notching: 68% | Glenoid implant failure (5.4%) | ||
| Stress shielding: 10.8% | Acromial fracture (2.7%) | ||||
| Heterotrophic ossification: 42% | Broken glenoid screw (2.7%) | ||||
| Revision (2.7%) | |||||
| Wiater et al. [26] | FF, IR, ER | – | Constant, ASES, SSV, VAS | AP, laterals | Non-cemented (7.8%): |
| Improve | ↑ Constant, ASES, SSV | Loosening: no | Systemic (3.1%) | ||
| ↓ VAS | Stress shielding: 7.8% (non-cemented) | Dislocation (4.7%) | |||
| Cemented (16.2%): | |||||
| Systemic (8.1%) | |||||
| Dislocation (2.7%) | |||||
| Infection (2.7%) | |||||
| Acromial fracture (2.7%) | |||||
| Holschen et al. [27] | FF, ER, Abd | – | Constant, SSV | AP, axillary | 135° neck-shaft angle: |
| Not differences between operated and non-operated side | No differences between 155° and 135° neck shaft angle | Scapular notching: 66% (155°) and 33% (135°) | Infection (4.8%) | ||
| Calcification: 48% (155°) and 38% (135°) | |||||
| Stress shielding: 29% (155°) and 10% (135°) | |||||
| Melis et al. [6] | FF, ER, ER (90°), Abd | – | Constant | AP, axillary | Total (10.3%): |
| No differences between cemented and non-cemented | No differences between cemented and non-cemented | Scapular notching: 88% | Instability (5.9%) | ||
| Very satisfied and satisfied: 84.5% | GT resorption: 69% (cemented) and 100% (non-cemented | Humeral fracture (2.9%) | |||
| LT resorption: 45% (cemented) and 76% (non-cemented | Acromial fracture (1.5%) | ||||
| Cemented: | |||||
| Humeral loosening (11.8%) | |||||
| Non-cemented: | |||||
| Humeral loosening (5.9%) | |||||
| Giuseffi et al. [30] | FF, ER | – | Neer, VAS | AP, scapular Y | Total (6.9%): |
| Improve | Neer: Excellent (61.4%) | Malaligned: 4.6% | Brachial plexus abnormality (2.3%) | ||
| ↓ VAS | Heterotopic ossification: 41% | Dislocation (2.3%) | |||
| Infection (2.3%) | |||||
| Schnetzke et al. [10] | FF, ER, Abd | Arm strength (ISOBEX dynamometer) | Constant, SSV, DASH, Pain | AP, axillary, scapular Y | Total (8.3%): |
| Improve | ↑ Constant, SSV | Cortical thinning/osteopenia: 42.1% | Acromial fracture (8.3%) | ||
| ??? DASH | High adaptations: 10.5% | ||||
| ↓ Pain |
Abbreviations: ROM, range of motion; FF, forward flexion; IR, internal rotation; ER, external rotation; Abd, abduction; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; AP, anteroposterior; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; WOOS, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder; VAS, visual analogue score; FRmet, filling ratio metaphyseal; FRdia, filling ratio diaphyseal; SSV, subjective shoulder value; SST, Simple Shoulder Test; SANE, Simple Assessment Numeric Evaluation; ADLEIR, Activities of daily living with requirement for external and internal rotation score; DASH, Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty; RSA, reverse shoulder arthroplasty; CVS, cerebrovascular stroke.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.