Comparison of reconstructive techniques following oncologic intraarticular resection of proximal humerus
Matthew T. Houdek, Brandon R. Bukowski, Alexander G. Athey, Bassem T. Elhassan, Jonathan D. Barlow, Mark E. Morrey, Peter S. Rose, Eric R. Wagner, Joaquín Sánchez‐Sotelo
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The proximal humerus is a common site of primary and metastatic disease in the upper extremity. Historically, the goal of a hemiarthroplasty reconstruction was to provide a stable platform for hand and elbow function, with limited shoulder function. Techniques utilizing a reverse endoprosthesis (endoprosthetic replacement [EPR]) and allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) have been developed; however, there is a paucity of comparative studies. METHODS: A total of 83 (42 females, 41 males) patients undergoing an intraarticular resection of the humerus were reviewed. Reconstructions included 30 reverse and 53 hemiarthroplasty; including hemiarthroplasty EPR (n = 36) and APC (n = 17), and reverse EPR (n = 20) and APC (n = 10). RESULTS: Reverse reconstructions had improved forward elevation (85° vs. 44°, p < .001) and external rotation (30° vs. 21°; p < .001) versus a hemiarthroplasty. Reverse reconstructions had improved American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (65 vs. 57; p = .01) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scores (72 vs. 63; p < .001) versus hemiarthroplasty. Subluxation of the reconstruction was a common (n = 23, 27%), only occurring in hemiarthroplasty patients (EPR [n = 13, 36%] and APC [n = 10, 59%]). CONCLUSION: The current series highlights the improved functional outcome in patients undergoing reconstruction with a reverse arthroplasty compared to the traditional hemiarthroplasty. Currently reverse shoulder arthroplasty (APC or EPR) is our preferred methods of reconstruction in this patient population.