Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures

Background Whereas most proximal humerus fractures are treated nonoperatively, complex 3- and 4-part fractures may require shoulder arthroplasty. Hemi-shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) has been the standard treatment, but recently there has been discussion and utilization of reverse total shoulder arthrop...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2015-10, Vol.24 (10), p.1560-1566
Hauptverfasser: Schairer, William W., MD, Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD, Lyman, Stephen, PhD, Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH, Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1566
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1560
container_title Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
container_volume 24
creator Schairer, William W., MD
Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD
Lyman, Stephen, PhD
Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH
Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD
description Background Whereas most proximal humerus fractures are treated nonoperatively, complex 3- and 4-part fractures may require shoulder arthroplasty. Hemi-shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) has been the standard treatment, but recently there has been discussion and utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a viable treatment option. This study evaluated the national utilization of RTSA and HSA for proximal humerus fractures and compared patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure. Methods This study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 2011, which allows national estimates of inpatient hospital discharges. Patients were selected by diagnosis and procedure codes to identify those who underwent RTSA or HSA for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure as well as in-hospital complication rates were identified. Results An estimated 7714 patients with proximal humerus fractures were selected, 27.4% of whom were treated with RTSA. Except for increased age, patient characteristics were similar between groups, as were complication rates. RTSA was more likely to be performed over HSA in small, rural, nonteaching hospitals and also in those that had already adopted and performed a high volume of RTSA procedures for other diagnoses. Conclusions Although HSA remains the most common arthroplasty choice for proximal humerus fractures, RTSA is becoming widely used. Patient characteristics and complications were similar between the 2 procedures, and as clinical evidence appears to show improved outcomes with RTSA, it is likely that acceptance of RTSA will continue to grow.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.018
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1713951528</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1058274615001597</els_id><sourcerecordid>1713951528</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-7b1a7e820274b00e858253482a4afac6f987a722d3f1129f5bca2d9e7ca8c0823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2L1TAUxYMozjj6B7iRLt203qTNS4ogyOAXDAh-rENeesNLbZtnbjrM--9NeaOgC1cJyTmXc3-HseccGg5892psRsJGAJcNtA1w_YBdctmKeicBHpY7SF0L1e0u2BOiEQD6DsRjdiFkL7UAfcnsF7zFRFjRIa7TgKmyKR9SPE6W8qna_laqDjiHv959TFVOaPOMS66ir44p3oXZTtVhnTEVi0_W5TUhPWWPvJ0In92fV-z7-3ffrj_WN58_fLp-e1O7Tulcqz23CkuokncPgLoElG2nhe2st27ne62sEmJoPeei93LvrBh6VM5qB1q0V-zleW6J8nNFymYO5HCa7IJxJcMVb3vJpdBFys9SlyJRQm-OqYRPJ8PBbGTNaApZs5E10JpCtnhe3I9f9zMOfxy_URbB67MAy5K3AZMhF3BxOISELpshhv-Of_OP201hCc5OP_CENMY1LYWe4YaEAfN1q3ZrlpemuexV-wsS2qBo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1713951528</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Schairer, William W., MD ; Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD ; Lyman, Stephen, PhD ; Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH ; Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Schairer, William W., MD ; Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD ; Lyman, Stephen, PhD ; Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH ; Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Background Whereas most proximal humerus fractures are treated nonoperatively, complex 3- and 4-part fractures may require shoulder arthroplasty. Hemi-shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) has been the standard treatment, but recently there has been discussion and utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a viable treatment option. This study evaluated the national utilization of RTSA and HSA for proximal humerus fractures and compared patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure. Methods This study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 2011, which allows national estimates of inpatient hospital discharges. Patients were selected by diagnosis and procedure codes to identify those who underwent RTSA or HSA for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure as well as in-hospital complication rates were identified. Results An estimated 7714 patients with proximal humerus fractures were selected, 27.4% of whom were treated with RTSA. Except for increased age, patient characteristics were similar between groups, as were complication rates. RTSA was more likely to be performed over HSA in small, rural, nonteaching hospitals and also in those that had already adopted and performed a high volume of RTSA procedures for other diagnoses. Conclusions Although HSA remains the most common arthroplasty choice for proximal humerus fractures, RTSA is becoming widely used. Patient characteristics and complications were similar between the 2 procedures, and as clinical evidence appears to show improved outcomes with RTSA, it is likely that acceptance of RTSA will continue to grow.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-2746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6500</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25958208</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Age Factors ; Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods ; Arthroplasty, Replacement - utilization ; Databases, Factual ; Female ; Health Facility Size - statistics &amp; numerical data ; hemiarthroplasty ; Hemiarthroplasty - adverse effects ; Hemiarthroplasty - utilization ; Hospitals, High-Volume - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Hospitals, Rural - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nationwide Inpatient Sample ; Orthopedics ; outcomes ; Proximal humerus fracture ; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty ; shoulder arthroplasty ; Shoulder Fractures - surgery ; Shoulder Joint - surgery ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2015-10, Vol.24 (10), p.1560-1566</ispartof><rights>Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>2015 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-7b1a7e820274b00e858253482a4afac6f987a722d3f1129f5bca2d9e7ca8c0823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-7b1a7e820274b00e858253482a4afac6f987a722d3f1129f5bca2d9e7ca8c0823</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6162-9329</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.018$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25958208$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schairer, William W., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyman, Stephen, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures</title><title>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</title><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><description>Background Whereas most proximal humerus fractures are treated nonoperatively, complex 3- and 4-part fractures may require shoulder arthroplasty. Hemi-shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) has been the standard treatment, but recently there has been discussion and utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a viable treatment option. This study evaluated the national utilization of RTSA and HSA for proximal humerus fractures and compared patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure. Methods This study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 2011, which allows national estimates of inpatient hospital discharges. Patients were selected by diagnosis and procedure codes to identify those who underwent RTSA or HSA for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure as well as in-hospital complication rates were identified. Results An estimated 7714 patients with proximal humerus fractures were selected, 27.4% of whom were treated with RTSA. Except for increased age, patient characteristics were similar between groups, as were complication rates. RTSA was more likely to be performed over HSA in small, rural, nonteaching hospitals and also in those that had already adopted and performed a high volume of RTSA procedures for other diagnoses. Conclusions Although HSA remains the most common arthroplasty choice for proximal humerus fractures, RTSA is becoming widely used. Patient characteristics and complications were similar between the 2 procedures, and as clinical evidence appears to show improved outcomes with RTSA, it is likely that acceptance of RTSA will continue to grow.</description><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - utilization</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Facility Size - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>hemiarthroplasty</subject><subject>Hemiarthroplasty - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hemiarthroplasty - utilization</subject><subject>Hospitals, High-Volume - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Hospitals, Rural - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nationwide Inpatient Sample</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>outcomes</subject><subject>Proximal humerus fracture</subject><subject>reverse total shoulder arthroplasty</subject><subject>shoulder arthroplasty</subject><subject>Shoulder Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Shoulder Joint - surgery</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1058-2746</issn><issn>1532-6500</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc2L1TAUxYMozjj6B7iRLt203qTNS4ogyOAXDAh-rENeesNLbZtnbjrM--9NeaOgC1cJyTmXc3-HseccGg5892psRsJGAJcNtA1w_YBdctmKeicBHpY7SF0L1e0u2BOiEQD6DsRjdiFkL7UAfcnsF7zFRFjRIa7TgKmyKR9SPE6W8qna_laqDjiHv959TFVOaPOMS66ir44p3oXZTtVhnTEVi0_W5TUhPWWPvJ0In92fV-z7-3ffrj_WN58_fLp-e1O7Tulcqz23CkuokncPgLoElG2nhe2st27ne62sEmJoPeei93LvrBh6VM5qB1q0V-zleW6J8nNFymYO5HCa7IJxJcMVb3vJpdBFys9SlyJRQm-OqYRPJ8PBbGTNaApZs5E10JpCtnhe3I9f9zMOfxy_URbB67MAy5K3AZMhF3BxOISELpshhv-Of_OP201hCc5OP_CENMY1LYWe4YaEAfN1q3ZrlpemuexV-wsS2qBo</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Schairer, William W., MD</creator><creator>Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD</creator><creator>Lyman, Stephen, PhD</creator><creator>Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH</creator><creator>Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-9329</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures</title><author>Schairer, William W., MD ; Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD ; Lyman, Stephen, PhD ; Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH ; Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-7b1a7e820274b00e858253482a4afac6f987a722d3f1129f5bca2d9e7ca8c0823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement - utilization</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Facility Size - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>hemiarthroplasty</topic><topic>Hemiarthroplasty - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hemiarthroplasty - utilization</topic><topic>Hospitals, High-Volume - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Hospitals, Rural - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nationwide Inpatient Sample</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>outcomes</topic><topic>Proximal humerus fracture</topic><topic>reverse total shoulder arthroplasty</topic><topic>shoulder arthroplasty</topic><topic>Shoulder Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Shoulder Joint - surgery</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schairer, William W., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyman, Stephen, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schairer, William W., MD</au><au>Nwachukwu, Benedict U., MD</au><au>Lyman, Stephen, PhD</au><au>Craig, Edward V., MD, MPH</au><au>Gulotta, Lawrence V., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures</atitle><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1560</spage><epage>1566</epage><pages>1560-1566</pages><issn>1058-2746</issn><eissn>1532-6500</eissn><abstract>Background Whereas most proximal humerus fractures are treated nonoperatively, complex 3- and 4-part fractures may require shoulder arthroplasty. Hemi-shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) has been the standard treatment, but recently there has been discussion and utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a viable treatment option. This study evaluated the national utilization of RTSA and HSA for proximal humerus fractures and compared patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure. Methods This study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 2011, which allows national estimates of inpatient hospital discharges. Patients were selected by diagnosis and procedure codes to identify those who underwent RTSA or HSA for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with each procedure as well as in-hospital complication rates were identified. Results An estimated 7714 patients with proximal humerus fractures were selected, 27.4% of whom were treated with RTSA. Except for increased age, patient characteristics were similar between groups, as were complication rates. RTSA was more likely to be performed over HSA in small, rural, nonteaching hospitals and also in those that had already adopted and performed a high volume of RTSA procedures for other diagnoses. Conclusions Although HSA remains the most common arthroplasty choice for proximal humerus fractures, RTSA is becoming widely used. Patient characteristics and complications were similar between the 2 procedures, and as clinical evidence appears to show improved outcomes with RTSA, it is likely that acceptance of RTSA will continue to grow.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25958208</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.018</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-9329</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-2746
ispartof Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2015-10, Vol.24 (10), p.1560-1566
issn 1058-2746
1532-6500
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1713951528
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Age Factors
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement - adverse effects
Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods
Arthroplasty, Replacement - utilization
Databases, Factual
Female
Health Facility Size - statistics & numerical data
hemiarthroplasty
Hemiarthroplasty - adverse effects
Hemiarthroplasty - utilization
Hospitals, High-Volume - statistics & numerical data
Hospitals, Rural - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nationwide Inpatient Sample
Orthopedics
outcomes
Proximal humerus fracture
reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
shoulder arthroplasty
Shoulder Fractures - surgery
Shoulder Joint - surgery
United States
title Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T00%3A52%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reverse%20shoulder%20arthroplasty%20versus%20hemiarthroplasty%20for%20treatment%20of%20proximal%20humerus%20fractures&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20shoulder%20and%20elbow%20surgery&rft.au=Schairer,%20William%20W.,%20MD&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1560&rft.epage=1566&rft.pages=1560-1566&rft.issn=1058-2746&rft.eissn=1532-6500&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1713951528%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1713951528&rft_id=info:pmid/25958208&rft_els_id=S1058274615001597&rfr_iscdi=true