Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/1471
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCritchley, Owainen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcLean, Andrewen_US
dc.contributor.authorPage, Richarden_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Fraseren_US
dc.contributor.authorGraves, Stephenen_US
dc.contributor.authorLorimer, Michelleen_US
dc.contributor.authorPeng, Yien_US
dc.contributor.authorHatton, Aleshaen_US
dc.contributor.authorBain, Gregoryen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-25T00:21:49Z-
dc.date.available2021-08-25T00:21:49Z-
dc.date.issued2020-12-
dc.identifier.citationCritchley O, McLean A, Page R, Taylor F, Graves S, Lorimer M, Peng Y, Hatton A, Bain G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: a registry analysis of 5946 patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Dec;29(12):2538-2547. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.04.005en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/1471-
dc.description.abstractThere is an increasing trend toward the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) over stemmed hemiarthroplasty (HA) for the management of proximal humeral fractures. There are limited data available comparing the revision rates for RTSA and HA in the setting of a fracture. The aim of this study was to compare the revision rates for RTSA and HA when used for the treatment of a fracture and to analyze the effect of demographics and prosthesis fixation on these revision rates. Data obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2017, included all procedures for primary diagnosis proximal humeral fracture. The analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models. Over the study period, there were 3049 (51%) RTSA and 2897 (49%) HA procedures. The cumulative percent revision rate at 9 years was lower for the RTSA than for the HA: 7.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-10.1) compared with 11.7% (95% CI, 10.3-13.2). Between 0 and 6 months, the HA had a significantly lower revision rate than the RTSA (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.72; P < .001). Between 6 month and 3 years, the HA had a significantly higher revision rate. For the RTSA, males have a significantly higher rate of revision compared with females. There is a higher rate of early revision due to instability in younger persons (55-64) and males. For both RTSA and HA, cemented prostheses have lower revision rates compared with cementless prostheses. RTSA has a significantly lower revision rate compared with HA for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in females. Younger patients (<65) and males are at risk of early revision secondary to instability. In these patient groups, either alternatives to RTSA or further attention to fixation of tuberosities and shoulder rehabilitation may be indicated.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of shoulder and elbow surgeryen_US
dc.subjectHemiarthroplastyen_US
dc.subjectRegistriesen_US
dc.subjectReoperationen_US
dc.subjectShoulder Fracturesen_US
dc.subjectShoulder Jointen_US
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen_US
dc.subjectArthroplastyen_US
dc.subjectReverse shoulder arthroplastyen_US
dc.subjectProximal humerus fractureen_US
dc.subjectJoint registryen_US
dc.titleReverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: a registry analysis of 5946 patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jse.2020.04.005-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Appears in Sites:Gold Coast Health Publications
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

104
checked on Nov 23, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.