Bone grafting in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of glenoid bone loss: A systematic review

Malahias, Michael Alexander; Chytas, Dimitrios; Kostretzis, Lazaros; Brilakis, Emmanouil; Fandridis, Emmanouil; Hantes, Michael; Antonogiannakis, Emmanouil

doi:10.1016/j.jor.2019.12.005

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent studies analyzing the use of bone graft in RSA described a satisfactory rate of bone graft incorporation [21,[32][33][34][35][36]. However, a systematic review by Malahias et al still reported a rate of radiographic non-union at 5.2% [37]. In addition, it is important to note that despite evidence of radiological union, true integration of the graft is rarely complete [38], as confirmed in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Bony and Metallic versus Standard Bony Reconstruction for Severe Glenoid Bone Loss. A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

Nabergoj

Neyton

Bothorel

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are different techniques to address severe glenoid erosion during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study assessed the clinical and radiological outcomes of RSA with combined bony and metallic augment (BMA) glenoid reconstruction compared to bony augmentation (BA) alone. A review of patients who underwent RSA with severe glenoid bone loss requiring reconstruction from January 2017 to January 2019 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: BMA versus BA alone. Clinical outcome measurements included two years postoperative ROM, Constant score, subjective shoulder value (SSV), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) score. Radiological outcomes included radiographic evidence of scapular complications and graft incorporation. The BMA group had significantly different glenoid morphology (p < 0.001) and greater bone loss thickness than the BA group (16.3 ± 3.8 mm vs. 12.0 ± 0.0 mm, p = 0.020). Both groups had significantly improved ROM (anterior forward flexion and external rotation) and clinical scores (Constant, SSV and ASES scores) at 2 years. Greater improvement was observed in the BMA group in terms of anterior forward flexion (86.3° ± 27.9° vs. 43.8° ± 25.6°, p = 0.013) and Constant score (56.6 ± 10.1 vs. 38.3 ± 16.7, p = 0.021). The BA group demonstrated greater functional and clinical improvements with higher postoperative active external rotation and ASES results (active external rotation, 49.4° ± 17.0° vs. 29.4° ± 14.7°, p = 0.017; ASES, 89.1 ± 11.3 vs. 76.8 ± 11.0, p = 0.045). The combination use of bone graft and metallic augments in severe glenoid bone loss during RSA is safe and effective and can be considered in cases of severe glenoid bone loss where bone graft alone may be insufficient.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Bony and Metallic versus Standard Bony Reconstruction for Severe Glenoid Bone Loss. A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

Nabergoj

Neyton

Bothorel

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Frankle et al mentioned that the pillar can be affected in 17.6% of the cases with severe cuff tear arthropathy 10 . In contrast, a recent J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f systematic review on bone grafting in primary and revision RTSA stated that the glenoid bone defect was only graded in six out of the thirteen studies (46.2%) 20 . And more importantly, none of these studies mentioned damage at the spine pillar.…”

Section: J O U R N a L P R E -P R O O Fmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…A disadvantage of this technique is that the bone stock has not been rebuilt. Nevertheless, bone grafting can still be performed if needed in case of a second revision 20 .…”

Section: J O U R N a L P R E -P R O O Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is bone grafting always necessary in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with uncontained glenoid bone defects?

Verstuyft

Vergison

Tongel

et al. 2021

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… 2019 , Malahias et al. 2020 ). For operative treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part PHFs in the elderly, reversed TSA has become the treatment of choice (Critchley et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a widely used procedure. It was originally intended for cuff arthropathy in elderly patients (Grammont and Baulot 1993), but is presently used for several indications, including acute proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) in the elderly, fracture malunions, chronic dislocations, and revision surgery (Clavert et al 2019, Rugg et al 2019, Malahias et al 2020. For operative treatment of displaced 3-and 4-part PHFs in the elderly, reversed TSA has become the treatment of choice (Critchley et al 2020), presently down to 60 years of age (Goldenberg et al 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stable glenoid component of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at 2 years as measured with model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone grafting in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of glenoid bone loss: A systematic review

Cited by 24 publications

References 35 publications

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Bony and Metallic versus Standard Bony Reconstruction for Severe Glenoid Bone Loss. A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Bony and Metallic versus Standard Bony Reconstruction for Severe Glenoid Bone Loss. A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

Is bone grafting always necessary in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with uncontained glenoid bone defects?

Stable glenoid component of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at 2 years as measured with model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About