Stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of short- and mid-term results.

INTRODUCTION: Stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is used to treat rotator cuff deficient arthropathies, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis. It has several advantages over the stemmed implant including preservation of bone stock, reduced surgical time, and easier revision. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL to retrieve all relevant studies evaluating stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1993 studies out of which 7 studies were included in this review; 324 patients underwent stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a weighted mean age of 74.1 (SD = 8.6, range = 38 to 93) years and a weighted mean follow-up time of 44 (SD = 6.6, range = 3 to 95) months. The included studies reported significant improvements in range of motion and functional scores comparable to stemmed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The weight mean flexion and abduction was (135 ± 12)° and (131 ± 12)° post-operatively, respectively. The weighted mean constant score increased from (26.7 ± 5.2) Patients (pts) to (63.0 ± 8.0) pts post-operatively. Overall complication and revision rate were 12.3% and 5.2%. CONCLUSION: Early and mid-term results indicate stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has similar clinical outcomes to stemmed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. There was no radiological evidence of humeral loosening at the latest follow-up.

Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is used in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder joint and other degenerative shoulder diseases. It has several proposed advantages over stemmed TSA including increased bone preservation, decreased operative time, and easier removal at revision. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to retrieve all relevant studies. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1417 studies, of which 22 were included in this review, with 962 patients undergoing stemless TSA. Stemless TSA led to significant improvements in range of motion and functional scores in all included studies. Meta-analysis of comparative studies between stemless and stemmed TSA identified no significant differences in postoperative Constant scores (mean difference [MD], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.29 to 5.81 points; P = .59) or complication rates (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.71-4.54; P = .22). Stemless TSA resulted in a significantly shorter operative time compared with stemmed TSA (MD, -15.03 minutes; 95% CI, -23.79 to -6.26 minutes; P = .0008). Stemless TSA also resulted in significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss compared with stemmed TSA (MD, -96.95 mL; 95% CI, -148.53 to -45.36 mL; P = .0002). CONCLUSION: Stemless anatomic TSA resulted in similar functional outcomes and complication rates to stemmed TSA with decreased operative time and lower blood loss. Further research is required to investigate the long-term durability of the stemless implant.

Heterotopic ossification after total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a known complication that can arise after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). In most cases, it is asymptomatic; however, in some patients, it can limit range of motion and lead to poor outcomes. The objective of this review was to assess and report the incidence, risk factors, prophylaxis, and management of HO after TEA. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed to retrieve all relevant studies evaluating the occurrence of HO after TEA. The search was performed in duplicate, and a quality assessment of all included studies was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1907 studies were retrieved, of which 45 were included involving 2256 TEA patients. HO was radiographically present in 10% of patients and was symptomatic in 3%. Fewer than 1% of patients went on to undergo surgical excision of HO, with outcomes after surgery reported as good or excellent as assessed by range of motion and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. HO appears more likely to develop in patients undergoing TEA because of ankylosis, primary osteoarthritis, and distal humeral fractures. Surgical intervention is more likely to be required in patients in whom HO develops after TEA performed for ankylosis and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: HO is an uncommon complication after TEA, with most patients in whom HO develops being asymptomatic and requiring no surgical management. Routine HO prophylaxis for TEA is not supported by the literature. The effectiveness of prophylaxis in high-risk patients is uncertain, and future studies are required to clarify its usefulness.