Login / Signup

Correlation Between Implant Positioning and Functional Outcomes in Partial Shoulder Resurfacing.

Gilberto Daniel LuzAmanda S CavalcantiJúlio FerreiraEduardo GodoyMarcus Vinicius Galvão AmaralGeraldo da Rocha Motta Filho
Published in: Revista brasileira de ortopedia (2022)
Objective  The present study aimed to correlate functional outcomes and implant positioning in a case series of partial shoulder resurfacing arthroplasties. Methods  A total of 25 patients were assessed for range of motion, functional outcome per the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score and radiographic findings. Pre- and postoperative data were compared. In addition, patients were grouped according to the cervical-diaphyseal angle (CDA) determined by an anteroposterior radiography and to the retroversion angle (RVA) determined by an axillary radiography. A CDA from 130° to 140° and a RVA from 20° to 40° consisted in ideal positioning (anatomical standard). Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Mann-Whitney test as appropriate. Results  The mean follow-up time was 48.3 months (12 to 67 months). The postoperative functional score (31.5) was higher than the preoperative score (15.5) ( p  < 0.001). In 6 patients, the implant was in anatomical positioning, while implant positioning was considered "nonstandard" in 19 subjects. Seven patients had a CDA < 130°, and 14 patients had a CDA ranging from 130° to 140°; in addition, the CDA was > 140° in 4 subjects. The RVA was up to 20° in 15 patients and ranged from 20° to 40° in 10 subjects. Using these criteria to group patients, the postoperative clinical-functional parameters were not statistically different from the preoperative findings ( p  > 0.05). Conclusion  Partial shoulder resurfacing results in significant postoperative functional recovery in patients with degenerative joint diseases. However, implant positioning assessed by CDA and RVA does not correlate with clinical-functional outcomes and, therefore, it is an inaccurate indicator of surgical success. Level of Evidence IV; Case Series.
Keyphrases