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

ABSTRACT

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the clinical outcomes after proximal humerus reconstruction with a reverse allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) versus reverse endoprosthesis. Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, we queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of reverse APC or reverse endoprosthesis reconstruction of the proximal humerus for massive bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. We compared postoperative range of motion, outcome scores, and the incidence of complications and revision surgery. Results: Of 259 unique articles, 18 articles were included (267 APC, 260 endoprosthesis). There were no significant differences between the APC and endoprosthesis cohort for postoperative forward elevation (P = .231), external rotation (P = .634), ASES score (P = .420), Constant score (P = .414), MSTS (P = .815), SST (P = .367), or VAS (P = .714). Rate of complications was 15% (31/213) in the APC cohort and 19% (27/144) in the endoprosthesis cohort. The rate of revision surgery was 12% after APC cohort and 7% after endoprosthesis. APC-specific complications included a 10% APC nonunion/malunion/resorption rate and 6% APC fracture/fragmentation rate. Discussion: Reverse APC and endoprosthesis are reasonable options for proximal humerus reconstruction. APC carries additional risks for complications, warranting evaluation of patients' healing capacity and surgeon experience. Level of Evidence Level IV; Systematic Review. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01248-7.