Related ACE Reports
- Published: Mar 2017
- ACE Report #9577
AAOS2017: Comparing function between 135- and 155-degree reverse shoulder prostheses
Study Type: Randomized Trial
OE Level of Evidence: N/A
Journal Level of Evidence: N/A
CONFERENCE ACE REPORTS
This ACE Report is a summary of a conference presentation or abstract. The information provided has limited the ability to provide an accurate assessment of the risk of bias or the overall quality. Please interpret the results with caution as trials may be in progress and select results may have been presented.
Why was this study needed now?
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been an increasingly popular method of treatment for end-stage shoulder arthropathy. Traditional prostheses were developed with a 155-degree neck-shaft angle, though more recently, prostheses with differing neck-shaft angles have been developed. This study sought to compare functional outcomes between prostheses with a 135-degree versus 155-degree neck-shaft angle.
What was the principal research question?
In reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, is there any significant difference in postoperative function between prostheses with a 155-degree neck-shaft angle and prostheses with a 135-degree neck-shaft angle when assessed after an average of 23 months follow-up?
|Population:||100 patients scheduled for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to rotator cuff arthropathy.|
|Intervention:||135-degree group: Patients underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, completed with the use of a prosthesis with a 135-degree neck-shaft angle. (n=50)|
|Comparison:||155-degree group: Patients underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, completed with the use of a prosthesis with a 155-degree neck-shaft angle. (n=50)|
|Outcomes:||The range of motion in flexion, abduction, internal rotation, and external rotation was measured. Clinical scores included a visual analog scale, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. The incidence of complications was recorded.|
|Time:||Mean follow-up was 23 months|
What were the important findings?
What should I remember most?
How will this affect the care of my patients?
The authors responsible for this critical appraisal and ACE Report indicate no potential conflicts of interest relating to the content in the original publication.