Cost Analysis of Hemiarthroplasty Versus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fractures

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

The present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and effectiveness of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. The Embase, Pubmed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical databases were searched between January 2009 and January 2022 to identify relevant studies. According to the search strategy, a total of 210 associated studies were retrieved and 16 were finally included. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for the data analysis. This study indicated that patients in the RSA group had significantly improved treatment outcomes compared with patients in the HA group, as assessed by Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score (95% CI, 1.69-3.76; P<0.001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (95% CI, 11.81-24.88; P<0.001) and shoulder range of motion (ROM; 95% CI, 3.41-9.07; P<0.001). However, the HA group was superior to the RSA group in terms of the Oxford Shoulder score (95% CI, 2.89-11.11; P<0.001). There was no significant statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and complications. Overall, for the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures in the elderly, the RSA group had improved postoperative ROM and functional scores compared with the HA group, without significant difference in the incidence of complications. However, HA remains a safe and reliable treatment option.

Reverse shoulder replacement versus hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in elderly patients: a systematic review

This systematic review of the literature aims to analyse current knowledge to inform choice between hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for managing proximal humerus fractures (PHF) in elderly patients; the aim is to understand if rTSA can be considered the gold standard for treating PHF in the elderly when surgical fixation or conservative treatment is not viable options. Studies reporting outcomes and complications of PHF treated with shoulder arthroplasty in the elderly were included. Studies were in English and published after 2008. Evidence levels I, II, III and IV were included. According to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and PubMed search engines, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. General data collected were study design, number of patients treated with HA and rTSA, age of patients (mean, mean and SD, mean and range), length of follow-up, type of implant, and clinical outcomes. rTSA can be regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of displaced 3 and 4-part fractures in the elderly. However, the literature offers mostly low-quality studies, thereby requiring further work to achieve a full understanding of this important topic.

Artroplastia do ombro no tratamento das fraturas da extremidade proximal do úmero: Conceitos atuais

Complex proximal humeral fractures, especially in elderly patients, often require arthroplastic surgical treatment. Traditionally, shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA) is the method of choice, resulting in long implant survival and a painless shoulder; however, shoulder HA has heterogeneous clinical outcomes related to the correct position of the implant, both in terms of height and version, and the anatomical consolidation of tuberosities. Today, reverse shoulder arthroplasties are increasingly used to treat such fractures. These techniques result in better functional outcomes compared to HAs, especially regarding anterior flexion, but implant longevity has not been established. The development of specific prosthetic humeral components for the treatment of fractures, which were recently introduced in the clinical practice, led to better clinical outcomes.

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the proximal humerus, often termed shoulder fractures, are common injuries, especially in older people. The management of these fractures varies widely, including in the use of surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of treatment and rehabilitation interventions for proximal humeral fractures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, and bibliographies of trial reports and systematic reviews to September 2020. We updated this search in November 2021, but have not yet incorporated these results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared non-pharmacological interventions for treating acute proximal humeral fractures in adults.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We prepared a brief economic commentary for one comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 trials (3179 participants, mostly women and mainly aged 60 years or over) that tested one of 26 comparisons. Six comparisons were tested by 2 to 10 trials, the others by small single-centre trials only. Twelve studies evaluated non-surgical treatments, 10 compared surgical with non-surgical treatments, 23 compared two methods of surgery, and two tested timing of mobilisation after surgery. Most trials were at high risk of bias, due mainly to lack of blinding. We summarise the findings for four key comparisons below. Early (usually one week post injury) versus delayed (after three or more weeks) mobilisation for non-surgically-treated fractures Five trials (350 participants) made this comparison; however, the available data are very limited. Due to very low-certainty evidence from single trials, we are uncertain of the findings of better shoulder function at one year in the early mobilisation group, or the findings of little or no between-group difference in function at 3 or 24 months. Likewise, there is very low-certainty evidence of no important between-group difference in quality of life at one year. There was one reported death and five serious shoulder complications (1.9% of 259 participants), spread between the two groups, that would have required substantive treatment. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment Ten trials (717 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (66% were three- or four-part fractures). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between surgical and non-surgical treatment in patient-reported shoulder function at one year (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.27; 7 studies, 552 participants) and two years (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.25; 5 studies, 423 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in patient-reported shoulder function at six months (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.38; 3 studies, 347 participants). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in quality of life at one year (EQ-5D (0: dead to 1: best quality): mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 6 studies, 502 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in mortality: one of the 31 deaths was explicitly linked with surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.62; 8 studies, 646 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of a higher risk of additional surgery in the surgery group (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.51; 9 studies, 667 participants). Based on an illustrative risk of 35 subsequent operations per 1000 non-surgically-treated patients, this indicates an extra 38 subsequent operations per 1000 surgically-treated patients (95% CI 8 to 94 more). Although there was low-certainty evidence of a higher overall risk of adverse events after surgery, the 95% CI also includes a slightly increased risk of adverse events after non-surgical treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31; 3 studies, 391 participants). Open reduction and internal fixation with a locking plate versus a locking intramedullary nail Four trials (270 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (63% were two-part fractures). There is low-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in shoulder function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.41; 4 studies, 227 participants), six months (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (0 to 100: worst disability): MD -0.39, 95% CI -4.14 to 3.36; 3 studies, 174 participants), or two years (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) (0 to 100: best outcome): MD 3.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 6.17; 2 studies, 101 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence of no between-group difference in quality of life (1 study), and of little difference in adverse events (4 studies, 250 participants) and additional surgery (3 studies, 193 participants). Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) versus hemiarthroplasty There is very low-certainty evidence from two trials (161 participants with either three- or four-part fractures) of no or minimal between-group differences in self-reported shoulder function at one year (1 study) or at two to three years' follow-up (2 studies); or in quality of life at one year or at two or more years' follow-up (1 study). Function at six months was not reported. Of 10 deaths reported by one trial (99 participants), one appeared to be surgery-related. There is very low-certainty evidence of a lower risk of complications after RTSA (2 studies). Ten people (6.2% of 161 participants) had a reoperation; all eight cases in the hemiarthroplasty group received a RTSA (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with non-surgical treatment, surgery does not result in a better outcome at one and two years after injury for people with displaced proximal humeral fractures. It may increase the need for subsequent surgery. The evidence is absent or insufficient for people aged under 60 years, high-energy trauma, two-part tuberosity fractures or less common fractures, such as fracture dislocations and articular surface fractures. There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to inform the choices between different non-surgical, surgical or rehabilitation interventions for these fractures.

Operative Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures with Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients ≥65 Years Old: A Critical Analysis Review

»

The majority of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) in patients who are ≥65 years of age are treated nonoperatively, but certain complex fracture patterns benefit from surgical intervention. However, there continues to be debate regarding the indications for surgery and the optimal surgical treatment (repair versus replacement) in this population.

»

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has grown in popularity for surgical treatment of fracture-dislocations and displaced complex PHFs in patients who are ≥65 years of age; it has definite advantages over surgical repair and hemiarthroplasty, but this finding requires additional higher-quality evidence.

»

RTSA provides early pain relief and return of shoulder function as well as predictable elevation above shoulder level in the forward plane, but the indications for and understanding of the effect of timing on RTSA after a PHF continue to evolve.

»

RTSA for an acute PHF is indicated in patients who are ≥65 years of age with 3- and 4-part fracture-dislocations, head-split fractures, and severely displaced fractures, and is an option in patients who are not able to tolerate nonoperative treatment of severely displaced 3- and 4-part fractures.

»

RTSA is also indicated as a salvage operation for PHFs that have failed initial surgical repair (i.e., fixation failure, implant failure, rotator cuff failure, or osteonecrosis) and is an option for symptomatic nonunion or malunion after nonoperative treatment.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides better shoulder function than hemiarthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in patients aged 70 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The most appropriate treatment for displaced multiple-fragment proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients is currently unclear. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is a promising treatment option that is being used increasingly. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of rTSA vs. hemiarthroplasty (HA) for the treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part fractures in elderly patients.

METHODS

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. We included patients aged ≥ 70 years with displaced 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures between September 2013 and May 2016. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years, with outcome measures including the Constant score (primary outcome), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index, EQ-5D (EuroQol 5 Dimensions) index, and range of motion, as well as pain and shoulder satisfaction assessed on a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

We randomized 99 patients to rTSA (48 patients) or HA (51 patients). Fifteen patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 41 rTSA and 43 HA patients for analysis. The mean age was 79.5 years, and there were 76 women (90%). The rTSA group had a mean Constant score of 58.7 points compared with 47.7 points in the HA group, with a mean difference of 11.1 points (95% CI, 3.0-18.9 points; P = .007). Compared with HA patients, rTSA patients had greater mean satisfaction with the shoulder (79 mm vs. 63 mm, P = .011), flexion (125° vs. 90°, P < .001), and abduction (112° vs. 83°, P < .001), but there was no difference in Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index, pain, or EQ-5D index scores. We identified 3 and 4 adverse events in the rTSA and HA groups, respectively. Among patients aged ≥ 80 years (n = 38), there was no difference between rTSA treatment and HA treatment in pain (17 mm vs. 9 mm, P = .17) or shoulder satisfaction (77 mm vs. 74 mm, P = .73).

CONCLUSION

We found that rTSA provides better shoulder function than HA as measured with the Constant score, further emphasized by rTSA patients being more satisfied with their shoulder function. The difference appears to be mainly a result of better range of motion (abduction and flexion) in the rTSA group. The results also indicate that patients aged ≥ 80 years benefit less from rTSA than patients aged 70-79 years.

Tuberosity Repair in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fracture Using a Stem-based Double-row Repair: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

INTRODUCTION

The optimal tuberosity repair method in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fracture is unknown.

METHODS

Eight matched pairs of cadaver shoulders were randomly assigned to a stem-based tuberosity repair technique or a nonstem-based repair (Boileau technique) and mechanically tested with a 10 kN load cell. Cyclic loading was performed between 10 and 100 N for 500 cycles at 1 Hz, followed by static pull to failure at 33 mm/s. Ultimate load was determined from the maximum load reached during the pull to failure. A paired Student t-test was used to compare the means of the ultimate load and average cyclic displacement of the two sample groups.

RESULTS

The ultimate load to failure for the stem-based tuberosity repair technique was significantly higher than the nonstem-based technique (668 ± 164 N versus 483 ± 67 N; P = 0.032). The average cyclic displacement for the stem-based tuberosity repair technique was significantly less than the nonstem-based technique 0 (0.83 ± 0.67 mm versus 3.36 ± 2.36 mm; P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

The stem-based tuberosity repair technique afforded higher ultimate load to failure with less average cyclic displacement than the nonstem-based technique. Consideration to the stem-based technique should be given when performing a tuberosity repair in the setting of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Primary Versus Salvage Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no established consensus on best treatment for complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in the elderly. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a viable option in this population but many times is used as a salvage procedure.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies comparing RTSA as a primary treatment for PHF versus as a salvage procedure following failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), humeral intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty (HA) or non-operative treatment was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Pooled outcomes and sub-group analyses assessing range of motion, patient reported outcomes and complications were examined using RevMan.

RESULTS

Five articles were included in final analysis with 104 patients in the primary RTSA group and 147 in the salvage RTSA group compromising 251 total patients. Primary RTSA had a statistically significant advantage in range of motion (forward flexion and external rotation), patient reported outcomes, and complications compared to salvage RTSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the best available evidence, primary RTSA may result in slightly better patient reported outcomes, range of motion and a lower rate of complication when compared to salvage RTSA. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of the current review.

ESTES recommendations on proximal humerus fractures in the elderly

PURPOSE

The section for the skeletal trauma and sport's injuries of the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) appointed a task force group to reach a consensus among European countries on proximal humeral fractures.

MATERIAL/METHODS

The task force group organized several consensus meetings until a paper with final recommendations was confirmed during the ESTES Executive Board meeting in Berlin on 25 October 2018.

CONCLUSION

The Recommendations compare conservative and four possible operative treatment options (ORIF, nailing, hemi- and total reverse arthroplasty) and enable the smallest common denominator for the surgical treatment among ESTES members.

Routine postoperative laboratory tests are unnecessary after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Obtaining postoperative laboratory studies after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a common practice. However, justification of this practice remains unclear. This study assesses the utility of routine postoperative laboratory studies in RSA.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of 369 patients who underwent RSA over 10 years were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 213 patients qualified for analysis. Primary outcomes were intervention related to abnormal laboratory values, length of stay, and 90-day emergency department visits/readmissions. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with abnormal laboratory values and postoperative visits/readmissions.

RESULTS

Of 213 patients analyzed, 188 (88.7%) had abnormal postoperative laboratory values: 69% had an abnormal hemoglobin (Hgb) or hematocrit level, but only 12% underwent interventions. Lower preoperative Hgb was a significant predictor of receiving a transfusion. A significant association existed between abnormal postoperative electrolyte and creatinine levels with lower body mass index (BMI) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Only 4 patients (1.8%) received non-transfusion related intervention. Emergency department visits were not statistically different between patients with positive or negative laboratory tests (P = .73).

CONCLUSION

Because 87.3% of laboratory studies did not influence patient management, we recommend against routine testing for primary RSA. This study demonstrates that the practice of obtaining routine postoperative laboratory studies is not justified. We recommend selectively obtaining a postoperative basic metabolic profile in patients with increased American Society of Anesthesiologists classification and/or CCI with a lower BMI. We also recommend selectively ordering postoperative complete blood count in patients with a lower preoperative Hgb.

Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: The path from Neer to Grammont

Shoulder replacement is indicated for the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients, when severe comminution and osteoporosis jeopardize the chances of success of any fixation technique. Two different implants are available for this purpose: anatomical hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). HA for fractures was popularized by Charles Neer in the ‘50s and for several decades remained the only reliable implant for these injuries. However, many authors reported inconsistent results with HA as a consequence of the high rate of tuberosity and rotator cuff failure. In 1987, Paul Grammont designed the first successful RTSA, which was the end result of a long thought process on functional surgery of the shoulder. This implant was initially used to treat cuff tear arthropathy and shoulder pseudoparalysis, but indications have gradually expanded with time. Since RTSA does not rely on a functional cuff for shoulder elevation, it was felt that results in fractures could be improved by this prosthesis. In this study, the salient features of these implants are described to understand the rationale behind both approaches and highlight their pros and cons. Several clinical studies comparing HA vs RTSA for proximal humeral fractures have been published during the last two decades. A literature review is carried out to analyze and compare outcomes of both implants, analyzing clinical results, radiographic findings and complications. The final goal is to provide an overview of the different factors to consider for making a choice between these two prostheses.

Comparison of surgical and non-surgical treatments for 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures: A network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Common treatment strategies for proximal humerus fractures include non-surgical treatment, open reduction internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. There is currently no consensus regarding the superiority of any one surgical strategy. We used network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the most successful treatment for proximal humerus fractures.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fracture treatments. Data extraction included the mean and standard deviation of clinical outcomes (Constant, DASH), adverse events, and additional surgery rates. Standard Mean Difference was used to compare clinical outcome scores, and pooled risk ratios were used to compare adverse events and additional surgeries.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials were included for network meta-analysis. Non-surgical treatment was associated with a lower rate of additional surgery and adverse events compared to open reduction internal fixation. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty resulted in fewer adverse events and a better clinical outcome score than hemiarthroplasty. Non-surgical treatment produced similar clinical scores, adverse event rates, and additional surgery rates to hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Non-surgical treatment results in fewer complications and additional surgeries compared to open reduction internal fixation. Preliminary data supports reverse total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty, but more evidence is needed to strengthen this conclusion.

Use and Cost of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Acute Proximal Humerus Fractures

Although reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) may outperform hemiarthroplasty (HSA) for acute proximal humerus fractures (PHF), both the RTSA implant and the procedure are more expensive. The goal of this study was to compare the use and longitudinal cost of care for RTSA vs HSA for the treatment of PHF. Patients were selected from a private payer database with a surgical date between 2010 and 2015. The International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification(ICD-9-CM), codes were used to identify patients who underwent RTSA and HSA for PHF. The 1-year cost follow-up was guaranteed. During the study period, a total of 1038 patients underwent RTSA and 1046 patients underwent HSA for the treatment of PHF. A total of 601 patients who underwent RTSA and 431 patients who underwent HSA with at least 1 year of follow-up were matched by age and sex. The average Charlson Comorbidity Index for the RTSA and HSA groups was 4, indicating similar health status. From 2010 to 2015, the use of RTSA increased linearly (R²=0.986), whereas the use of HSA decreased linearly (R²=0.796). The average index admission cost was higher for RTSA than for HSA ($15,263 vs $14,356, respectively; mean difference [MD], $907; 95% confidence interval [CI], $58-$1760; P=.04). At 1 year postoperatively, however, no statistically significant difference was noted in cost (P=.535). The 1-year physical and occupational therapy cost per patient was higher after HSA than after RTSA (MD, $723; CI, $718-$728; P<.001), but no difference was noted in discharge disposition or 1-year revision or readmission rates. The results of this study suggest that despite the higher initial cost of RTSA, the total cost of care in the year after RTSA and HSA is similar. Therefore, RTSA should be considered in the appropriate clinical setting. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(2):119-125.].

Nordic Innovative Trials to Evaluate osteoPorotic Fractures (NITEP) Collaboration: The Nordic DeltaCon Trial protocol-non-operative treatment versus reversed total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age and older with a displaced proximal humerus fracture: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The proximal humerus fracture (PHF) is one of the most common fractures in the elderly. The majority of PHFs are treated non-operatively, while 15%-33% of patients undergo surgical treatment. Recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) and meta-analyses have shown that there is no difference in outcome between non-operative treatment and locking plate or hemi-arthroplasty. During the past decade, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has gained popularity in the treatment of PHF, although there is a lack of RCTs comparing RTSA to non-operative treatment.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, multicentre and multinational trial comparing RTSA with non-operative treatment in displaced proximal humeral fractures in patients 65-85 years. The primary outcome in this study is QuickDASH-score measured at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include visual analogue scale for pain, grip strength, Oxford shoulder score, Constant score and the number of reoperations and complications.The hypothesis of the trial is that operative treatment with RTSA produces better outcome after 2 and 5 years measured with QuickDASH.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In this protocol, we describe the design, method and management of the Nordic DeltaCon trial. The ethical approval for the trial has been given by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Norway. There have been several examples in orthopaedics of innovations that result in failure after medium-term follow-ups . In order to prevent such failures and to increase our knowledge of RSTA, we feel a large-scale study of the effects of the surgery on the outcome that focuses on the complications and reoperations is warranted. After the trial 2-year follow-up, the results will be disseminated in a major orthopaedic publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03531463; Pre-Results.

Decreased Reoperations and Improved Outcomes With Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Comparison to Hemiarthroplasty for Geriatric Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare range of motion, clinical outcome scores, and complications after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) in geriatric patients with acute proximal humerus fractures.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE (1946-2017), EMBASE (1947-2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1898-2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2017. No limits were used in the database search. We also manually reviewed reference lists of included studies. We did not restrict studies based on language.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in which the study population had a mean age of 65 years or older, received RSA or HA to treat an acute proximal humerus fracture, and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers used a standardized data collection form to extract relevant information from included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by a consensus or a third party if consensus could not be reached. Study authors were contacted for missing or incomplete data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Using a random effects model, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes; we calculated relative risk for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 421 patients treated with RSA and 492 treated with HA for a total of 913 patients. Compared with HA, the RSA group had significantly improved pain scores (SMD = 0.74, P < 0.001), outcome scores (SMD = 0.63, P < 0.001), and forward flexion (MD = 24.3 degrees, P < 0.001). Compared with RSA, the HA group had a significantly increased risk of reoperation (relative risk = 2.8, P = 0.02). There were no differences between the groups with regard to external rotation (P = 0.31) or deep infection (P = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Aggregating available research suggests that RSA results in improved range of motion, clinical outcome scores, and rates of all-cause reoperation with no difference in infection rates. Using RSA for the treatment of acute proximal humerus fractures in the elderly population may result in improved short- and medium-term outcomes compared with HA. Future work should evaluate long-term outcomes to see if the benefits of RSA persist.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Treatment of humerus fractures in the elderly: A systematic review covering effectiveness, safety, economic aspects and evolution of practice

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this Health Technology Assessment was to evaluate effectiveness, complications and cost-effectiveness of surgical or non-surgical treatment for proximal, diaphyseal or distal fractures of the humerus in elderly patients. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the intervention costs per treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) and to investigate treatment traditions of PHF in Sweden.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The assessment contains a systematic review of clinical and health economic studies comparing treatment options for humerus fractures in elderly patients. The results regarding the effectiveness of treatments are summarized in meta-analyses. The assessment also includes a cost analysis for treatment options and an analysis of registry data of PHF. For hemiarthroplasty (HA) and non-operative treatment, there was no clinically important difference for moderately displaced PHF at one-year follow-up regarding patient rated outcomes, (standardized mean difference [SMD]) -0.17 (95% CI: -0.56; 0.23). The intervention cost for HA was at least USD 5500 higher than non-surgical treatment. The trend in Sweden is that surgical treatment of PHF is increasing. When functional outcome of percutaneous fixation/plate fixation/prosthesis surgery and non-surgical treatment was compared for PHF there were no clinically relevant differences, SMD -0.05 (95% CI: -0.26; 0.15). There was not enough data for interpretation of quality of life or complications. Evidence was scarce regarding comparisons of different surgical options for humerus fracture treatment. The cost of plate fixation of a PHF was at least USD 3900 higher than non-surgical treatment, costs for complications excluded. In Sweden the incidence of plate fixation of PHF increased between 2005 and 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate/low certainty of evidence that surgical treatment of moderately displaced PHF in elderly patients has not been proven to be superior to less costly non-surgical treatment options. Further research of humerus fractures is likely to have an important impact.

Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

The reasons for failure of a hemirthroplasty (HA) when used to treat a proximal humeral fracture include displaced or necrotic tuberosities, insufficient metaphyseal bone-stock, and rotator cuff tears. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is often the only remaining form of treatment in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome after conversions from a failed HA to rTSA.

Material and Methods

A total of 35 patients, in whom a HA, as treatment for a fracture of the proximal humerus, had failed, underwent conversion to a rTSA. A total of 28 were available for follow-up at a mean of 61 months (37 to 91), having been initially reviewed at a mean of 20 months (12 to 36) postoperatively. Having a convertible design, the humeral stem could be preserved in nine patients. The stem was removed in the other 19 patients and a conventional rTSA was implanted. At final follow-up, patients were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Constant Score, and plain radiographs.

Results

At final follow-up, the mean ASES was 59 (25 to 97) and the mean adjusted Constant Score was 63% (23% to 109%). Both improved significantly (p < 0.001). The mean forward flexion was 104° (50° to 155°) and mean abduction was 98° (60° to 140°). Nine patients (32%) had a complication; two had an infection and instability, respectively; three had a scapular fracture; and one patient each had delayed wound healing and symptomatic loosening. If implants could be converted to a rTSA without removal of the stem, the operating time was shorter (82 minutes versus 102 minutes; p = 0.018).

Conclusion

After failure of a HA in the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture, conversion to a rTSA may achieve pain relief and improved shoulder function. The complication rate is considerable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:761-6.

[Shoulder endoprosthesis in the elderly : Hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty? Anatomic or reverse?]

Implantation of reverse shoulder endoprostheses is becoming more popular for elderly patients besides the well-established standard anatomic endoprostheses. The reasons for this are the increased life expectancy, age-dependent degeneration of the rotator cuff leading to cuff tear arthropathy, posttraumatic disability after failed osteosynthesis and primary reverse fracture arthroplasty. Stemless implants are more frequently used for primary osteoarthritis with the bone quality being the limiting factor. Modern implant systems allow the stepwise extension from bone preserving primary implants to modular and convertible revision implants that allow a partial exchange of components. Revision surgery, especially that of reverse arthroplasty, has limited potential for secondary treatment options and therefore implantation and revision should be performed in specialized treatment facilities.