Glenohumeral Arthritis and Its Management

Matsen, Frederick A.; Clinton, Jeremiah; Rockwood, Charles A.; Wirth, Michael A.; Lippitt, Steven B.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4160-3427-8.50028-3

Cited by 47 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 316 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, the shoulder should be comfortable when the arm is at the side of the body, and the scapula should not be prominent in this position [17]. Hawkins and Neer recommended 25~40°abduction, 203 0°flexion and 25~30°internal rotation of the shoulder [11]; Richards et al recommended abduction, flexion and internal rotation of approximately 30° [15], while Matsen et al proposed 15°abduction, 15°flexion and 40°internal rotation as the appropriate position [13]. Many researchers have emphasised the importance of a fixed angle of the shoulder joint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoulder arthrodesis with a reconstruction plate

Chun

Byeon

2008

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoulder arthrodesis with a reconstruction plate

Chun

Byeon

2008

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The essential elements of our surgical techniques were described in detail previously [36,39,42,43]: a deltopectoral approach, subscapularis peel, retention of the long head tendon of the biceps unless it was damaged, humeral head cut in 30 o retroversion, conservative glenoid reaming without specific attempt to normalize glenoid version, use of the Anchor Peg Glenoid prosthesis (DePuy Synthes) [63] in total shoulder arthroplasties, and fixation of the humeral component using impaction autografting [6,24]. Any tendency for excessive posterior translation at the time of surgery was managed with anteriorly eccentric humeral head components and/or rotator interval plication [29,36,39,42,43]. None of the glenoid components were posteriorly augmented.…”

Section: Description Of Experiment Treatment or Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

What Factors are Predictive of Patient-reported Outcomes? A Prospective Study of 337 Shoulder Arthroplasties

Matsen

Russ

et al. 2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although shoulder arthroplasties generally are effective in improving patients' comfort and function, the results are variable for reasons that are not well understood. Questions/Purposes We posed two questions: (1) What factors are associated with better 2-year outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty? (2) What are the sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values of a multivariate predictive model for better outcome? Methods Three hundred thirty-nine patients having a shoulder arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy, ream and run arthroplasty, total shoulder or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) between August 24, 2010 and December 31, 2012 consented to participate in this prospective study. Two patients were excluded because they were missing baseline variables. Forty-three patients were missing 2-year data. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the relationship of baseline patient, shoulder, and surgical characteristics to a ''better'' outcome, defined as an improvement of at least 30% of the maximal possible improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test. The results were used to develop a predictive model, the accuracy of which was tested using a 10-fold cross-validation. Results After controlling for potentially relevant confounding variables, the multivariate analysis showed that the factors significantly associated with better outcomes were American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I (odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.03-3.65; p = 0.041), shoulder problem not related to work (OR, 5.36; 95% CI, 2.15-13.37; p \ 0.001), lower baseline Simple Shoulder Test score (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42; p \ 0.001), no prior shoulder surgery (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18-2.70; p = 0.006), humeral head not superiorly displaced on the AP radiograph (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-4.02; p = Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained. OR, 4.47; 95% CI,; p \ 0.001). Neither preoperative glenoid version nor posterior decentering of the humeral head on the glenoid were associated with the outcomes. The model predictive of a better result was driven mainly by the six factors listed above. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve generated from the crossvalidated enhanced predictive model was 0.79 (generally values of 0.7 to 0.8 are considered fair and values of 0.8 to 0.9 are considered good). The false-positive fraction and the true-positive fraction depended on the cutoff probability selected (ie, the selected probability above which the prediction would be classified as a better outcome). A cutoff probability of 0.68 yielded the best performance of the model with cross-validation predictions of better outcomes for 236 patients (80%) and worse outcomes for 58 patients (20%); sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 88%-95%); specificity of ...

show abstract

“…hyperuricaemia) and other diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell disease, haemophilia, and neurotrophic diseases such as syringomyelia, etc. [6,13]. The underlying cause of the so-called primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder is still unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there an association between a low acromion index and osteoarthritis of the shoulder?

Kircher

Morhard

Gavriilidis

et al. 2009

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between a low acromion index and osteoarthritis of the shoulder. Three patient groups were used: (I) instability, n=53; (II) calcifying tendonitis, n=109; and (III) osteoarthritis, n=120. Standardised digital X-rays were evaluated from the true anteroposterior and axillary views. Joint space width at three levels in each plane and the size of humeral osteophytes were measured and osteoarthritis was graded according to Samilson. The acromion index was calculated according to Nyffeler et al. (J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:800-805, 2006) in the true anteroposterior view. There were two independent investigators. Interobserver reliability was excellent for all measurements in the anteroposterior (AP) projection but inferior in the axillary projections, especially in group III. The mean acromion index was 0.64±0.07 in group I, 0.64±0.08 in group II and 0.73±0.12 in group III. The acromion index was not correlated with the joint space width nor with the size of the osteophytes or the Samilson grading in group III. The data of the study did not show a significant association between a low acromion index and typical signs of osteoarthritis at the shoulder. The theoretical concept of a small acromion index associated with the development of osteoarthritis of the shoulder is not supported.

show abstract

Glenohumeral Arthritis and Its Management

Cited by 47 publications

References 316 publications

Shoulder arthrodesis with a reconstruction plate

Shoulder arthrodesis with a reconstruction plate

What Factors are Predictive of Patient-reported Outcomes? A Prospective Study of 337 Shoulder Arthroplasties

Is there an association between a low acromion index and osteoarthritis of the shoulder?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About