» Articles » PMID: 37426912

Functional Outcomes After Reverse Shoulder Megaprosthesis Following Resection of Malignant Bone Tumor in the Proximal Humerus: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal JSES Int
Date 2023 Jul 10
PMID 37426912
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

After resection of tumors in the proximal humerus, orthopedic oncologic surgeons are able to restore the shoulder function of patients with reverse shoulder megaprosthesis. Information about expected postoperative physical functioning is required to guide patient expectations, identify abnormal recovery, and set treatment goals. The aim was to provide an overview of functional outcomes after reverse shoulder megaprosthesis in patients after proximal humerus resection. This systematic review searched studies in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase up to March 2022. Data on performance-based and patient-reported functional outcomes were extracted using standardized data extraction files. A meta-analysis with random effects model was performed to estimate outcomes after 2-year follow-up. The search identified 1089 studies. Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis and six in the meta-analysis. Forward flexion range of motion (ROM) after 2 years was 105 degrees (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 88-122, n = 59), abduction ROM 105 degrees (95% CI: 96-115, n = 29), and external rotation ROM 26 degrees (95% CI: 1-51, n = 48). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score after 2 years was 67 points (95% CI: 48-86, n = 42), mean Constant-Murley-Score 63 (95% CI: 62-64, n = 36), and mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score 78 (95% CI: 66-91, n = 56). The meta-analysis shows acceptable functional outcomes 2 years after reverse shoulder megaprosthesis. However, outcomes may well differ between patients as reflected by the CIs. Further research should focus on modifiable factors associated with impaired functional outcomes.

Citing Articles

Outcome, Complications, and Survival of Sarcomas of the Extremities Treated With Mega Prostheses: A Comprehensive Analysis of 115 Cases in a Cancer-Dedicated Hospital.

Farooque K, Shafiq M, Farooq M, Rafi I, Shoaib A, Asif S Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e71749.

PMID: 39553141 PMC: 11569384. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.71749.


Reverse Allograft Prosthetic-Composite Versus Endoprosthesis Reconstruction for Massive Proximal Humerus Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes and Complications.

Hao K, Gutowski C, Bindi V, Srinivasan R, Wright J, King J Indian J Orthop. 2024; 58(10):1339-1348.

PMID: 39324078 PMC: 11420417. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-024-01248-7.


Elbow Reconstruction with Megaprosthesis: An Effective Strategy for Salvage Surgery in Trauma Patients.

Dragosloveanu S, Petre M, Gherghe M, Baz R, Cergan R, Scheau C Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 38611636 PMC: 11011899. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14070724.


Reverse Shoulder Megaprosthesis for Massive Proximal Humeral Bone Loss in Fracture Outcome Settings: A Report of Two Cases and Literature Review.

Morea V, Polizzi A, Niccoli G, Zattoni G, Andriollo L Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e54276.

PMID: 38496105 PMC: 10944564. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54276.


Poor clinical outcomes and high rates of dislocation after modular reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral oncologic resection.

Amouyel T, Szymanski C, Rodrigues V, Saab M, Maynou C Int Orthop. 2024; 48(5):1331-1339.

PMID: 38403733 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-024-06122-7.

References
1.
Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C . Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996; 29(6):602-8. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L. View

2.
Kaa A, Jorgensen P, Sojbjerg J, Johannsen H . Reverse shoulder replacement after resection of the proximal humerus for bone tumours. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(11):1551-5. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31545. View

3.
Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

4.
Janssen S, van Rein E, Paulino Pereira N, Raskin K, Ferrone M, Hornicek F . The Discrepancy between Patient and Clinician Reported Function in Extremity Bone Metastases. Sarcoma. 2016; 2016:1014248. PMC: 5048023. DOI: 10.1155/2016/1014248. View

5.
Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I . Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5:13. PMC: 1097734. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13. View