Clinical and radiological results 7 years after Copeland shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: an independent multicentre retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to evaluate the midterm outcomes and survival after cementless stemless resurfacing arthroplasty (CSRA) in a series of 33 shoulders in 27 patients with primary osteoarthritis. METHODS: Clinical outcome assessment included: Constant-Murley score (CMS); Simple Shoulder Test (SST); Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH); EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) utility scores; Numerous Rating Scale (NRS) for pain. Radiographs were assessed by two independent observers for oversizing, radiolucency, glenohumeral subluxation, glenoid erosion and subsidence. Correlations between the clinical and radiological outcomes were calculated. Complications were registered, and revision and survival rates were calculated. RESULTS: Mean age at time of surgery and mean follow-up time were, respectively, 67.7 (range 50.2-85.1) and 7.2 years (range 5.7-9.3 years). Means (SD) for CMS, age- and gender-adjusted CMS, SST, DASH and EQ-5D utility scores were: 56.4 (20.2), 76.5 (25.0), 54.0 (29.8), 37.6 (23.3) and 0.8 (0.1), respectively. NRS for pain was 2.0 and 3.8, respectively, in rest and during activities. Radiographic assessment of the CSRAs showed oversizing in 54.5%; radiolucency in 18.2%; superior glenohumeral subluxation in 33.3%; glenoid erosion in 45.5%; and subsidence in 3.0%. Perioperative complications did not occur. Revision surgery was performed in one patient (3.0%). CONCLUSION: For primary osteoarthritis, the CSRA showed good clinical but poor radiological outcomes at midterm follow-up.

High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are several treatment options for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. The next step treatment after conservative treatment fails is still a matter of dispute. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been shown to be a good alternative to surgery, but the best treatment intensity remains unknown. High-energy ESWT is much more painful, more expensive, and usually is done in an inpatient setting, whereas low-energy ESWT can be performed in an outpatient setting by a physical therapist. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed to answer two clear research questions: (1) Is there a greater increase in the Constant-Murley score in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with those treated with low-energy ESWT by 3 months and by 6 months? (2) Is there a greater chance of complete resorption of the calcifications in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with those treated with low-energy ESWT by 3 months and by 6 months? METHODS: Five relevant electronic online databases, Medline (through PubMed), EMBASE (through OVID), Cinahl (through EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were systematically searched. We also crosschecked the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Eligible for inclusion were all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high-energy ESWT (> 0.28 mJ/mm(2)) with low-energy ESWT (< 0.08 mJ/mm(2)). One author examined titles and abstracts of each identified study to assess study eligibility. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and study quality. The primary outcome measure, the Constant-Murley score, was assessed by comparing mean functional outcome scores between the groups. Secondary outcomes were assessed using odds ratios, when appropriate data were pooled. Based on this process, five RCTs (359 participants) were included. RESULTS: All five RCTs showed greater improvement in functional outcome (Constant-Murley score) in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with patients treated with low-energy ESWT at 3 and 6 months. The 3-month mean difference was 9.88 (95% CI, 9.04-10.72, p < 0.001; 6-month data could not be pooled). Furthermore, high-energy ESWT more often resulted in complete resorption of the deposits at 3 months. The corresponding odds ratio was 3.40 (95% CI, 1.35-8.58) and p = 0.009 (6-month data could not be pooled). CONCLUSION: When shock wave therapy is chosen, high-energy shock wave therapy is more likely to result in improved Constant-Murley score and resorption of the deposits compared with low-energy therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.