FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3047699850> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3047699850 endingPage "857" @default.
• W3047699850 startingPage "850" @default.
• W3047699850 abstract "Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes, revisions, and complications between a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant and a second-generation monolithic, primarily uncemented humeral implant in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with 135° neck-shaft angle and varying degrees of metallic glenosphere offsets. Methods We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from 2004 to 2014 with a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant (400 patients) or second-generation monolithic humeral stem (231 patients), who had at minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up. Results Both groups of patients had similar improvement of clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons +30 points vs. +34 points, respectively) with improvements in all planes of motion (forward flexion +70° vs. +75°, abduction +61° vs. +71°, external rotation +23° vs. +22°, and internal rotation +1.6 vs. +1.5 level improvement, respectively). The incidence of humeral loosening for the cemented group was 3.6%, whereas in the uncemented group it was 0.4% (P = .01). A total of 28 shoulders treated with the cementing technique (4.0%) and 6 patients treated with the press-fit technique (1.5%) were revised (P = .028). The rate of postoperative acromial fractures within the first year was 3.4% in the cemented group and 1.8% in the uncemented group (P = .177). Conclusions Both the first-generation cemented modular humeral stem implant and the second-generation monolithic humeral stem implant had equivalent clinical outcomes. In addition, with the monolithic stem primarily using press-fit fixation, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of radiographic loosening and the need for revision compared with a cemented stem. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes, revisions, and complications between a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant and a second-generation monolithic, primarily uncemented humeral implant in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with 135° neck-shaft angle and varying degrees of metallic glenosphere offsets. We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from 2004 to 2014 with a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant (400 patients) or second-generation monolithic humeral stem (231 patients), who had at minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up. Both groups of patients had similar improvement of clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons +30 points vs. +34 points, respectively) with improvements in all planes of motion (forward flexion +70° vs. +75°, abduction +61° vs. +71°, external rotation +23° vs. +22°, and internal rotation +1.6 vs. +1.5 level improvement, respectively). The incidence of humeral loosening for the cemented group was 3.6%, whereas in the uncemented group it was 0.4% (P = .01). A total of 28 shoulders treated with the cementing technique (4.0%) and 6 patients treated with the press-fit technique (1.5%) were revised (P = .028). The rate of postoperative acromial fractures within the first year was 3.4% in the cemented group and 1.8% in the uncemented group (P = .177). Both the first-generation cemented modular humeral stem implant and the second-generation monolithic humeral stem implant had equivalent clinical outcomes. In addition, with the monolithic stem primarily using press-fit fixation, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of radiographic loosening and the need for revision compared with a cemented stem." @default.
• W3047699850 created "2020-08-13" @default.
• W3047699850 creator A5042556321 @default.
• W3047699850 creator A5044040074 @default.
• W3047699850 creator A5062305493 @default.
• W3047699850 creator A5068177749 @default.
• W3047699850 creator A5073430365 @default.
• W3047699850 date "2021-04-01" @default.
• W3047699850 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W3047699850 title "A cohort comparison of humeral implant designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does implant design lead to lower rates of complications and revision?" @default.
• W3047699850 cites W1967884169 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W1982019844 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W1987511048 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2001496935 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2014929458 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2024896644 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2051796389 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2057772149 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2086154562 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2127461613 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2139275074 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2145305179 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2267144737 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2312926878 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2329526870 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2415995845 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2609114725 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2727630056 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2885230847 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2902089151 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W2945077758 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W4229715305 @default.
• W3047699850 cites W4231205611 @default.
• W3047699850 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.07.031" @default.
• W3047699850 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771605" @default.
• W3047699850 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3047699850 type Work @default.
• W3047699850 sameAs 3047699850 @default.
• W3047699850 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W3047699850 countsByYear W30476998502021 @default.
• W3047699850 countsByYear W30476998502022 @default.
• W3047699850 countsByYear W30476998502023 @default.
• W3047699850 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3047699850 hasAuthorship W3047699850A5042556321 @default.
• W3047699850 hasAuthorship W3047699850A5044040074 @default.
• W3047699850 hasAuthorship W3047699850A5062305493 @default.
• W3047699850 hasAuthorship W3047699850A5068177749 @default.
• W3047699850 hasAuthorship W3047699850A5073430365 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C2777325788 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C2778336525 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C2781184374 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C36454342 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C141071460 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C199343813 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C2777325788 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C2778336525 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C2781184374 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C2781411149 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C36454342 @default.
• W3047699850 hasConceptScore W3047699850C71924100 @default.
• W3047699850 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3047699850 hasLocation W30476998501 @default.
• W3047699850 hasOpenAccess W3047699850 @default.
• W3047699850 hasPrimaryLocation W30476998501 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W1980402447 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W2083426677 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W2151029846 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W2329195235 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W2519495024 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W2526398391 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W275413345 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W2791352027 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W3007880915 @default.
• W3047699850 hasRelatedWork W3147175934 @default.
• W3047699850 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W3047699850 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3047699850 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3047699850 magId "3047699850" @default.
• W3047699850 workType "article" @default.