Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
To determine the differences in the placement of the glenoid implant of the inverted prostheses when they are implanted using a superior approach and using an anterior approach.
Inverted prostheses have proven to be effective in the treatment of all those pathologies that involve a deterioration of the rotator cuff (secondary arthropathy, acute fractures, sequelae of fractures, tumor surgery and revision surgery). Despite this, numerous complications have been described after the use of inverted prostheses, such as glenoid erosion, infections, dislocation, or aseptic loosening. The most frequent complication related to the use of inverted prostheses is glenoid erosion that can occur in up to 96% of cases. This complication appears early in the evolution, usually before 2 years after surgery. Its clinical significance is not yet clear, but it seems that it may be a cause of long-term prosthetic loosening. To avoid the development of glenoid erosion, the best option is to place the glenoid component low, so that if the glenoid component is flush with the lower margin of the glena, the chances of developing glenoid erosion are significantly reduced. Two types of approaches have been used to implant these prostheses, the deltopectoral and the superior anterior approach. Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages, so that deltopectoral seems to improve surgical exposure and therefore favors the best placement of the glenoid component, but sacrifices the subscapularis tendon, increasing the risk of dislocation of the components. On the contrary, the superior anterior approach respects the subscapularis tendon, reducing the risk of dislocation of the components but gives worse surgical exposure.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| deltopectoral | Other | deltopectoral surgical approach |
|
| antero-superior | Other | antero-superior approach |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty | Procedure | implantation of a reversed shoulder prostheses through two different surgical approaches |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| positioning of the metaglene of the reverse shoulder prostheses | to determine the metaglene postioning in both surgical approaches by measuring the distance between the inferior part of the metaglene and the glenoid inferior rim. The measurement will be done in an AP X-ray view of the shoulder and with the help of the measure tool in the PACS system of viewing. | 2 years |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| scapular notch | determine scapular notch development in both approaches as determined with the aid of an AP X-ray view of the shoulder and thus classifying the scapular notch development according to Sirveaux et al. classification system. | 2 years |
| functional outcome |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
prospective randomized study
Not provided
Not provided
given the fact that the different approaches come with different scars, just the outcomes assessor can be blinded
determine the functional outcome as measured with the Constant Score at 2-years follow-up |
| 2 years. The minimum value of the Constant Score is 0 and the maximum is 100. The higher scores mean a better outcome. |