Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
An updated systematic review and meta‑analysis comparing deltoid‑split approach with deltopectoral approach for
1Department of Orthopedics, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China.
Abstract:
The present review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the currently available data and to compare the important clinical and functional outcomes in patients with proximal humerus fractures who were treated using deltoid split (DS) or deltopectoral (DP) surgical approaches. The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials or observational studies that reported functional outcome data of patients with fracture of proximal humerus who were surgically treated using DS and DP approaches. A total of 14 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The duration of surgery [min; weighted mean difference (WMD), -16.44; 95% CI, -(25.25-7.63)], amount of blood loss [ml; WMD, -57.99; 95% CI, -(102.74-13.23)] and time to bone union [weeks WMD, -1.66; 95% CI, -(2.30-1.02)] was comparatively lower in patients that underwent DS. There were no statistically significant differences in the pain and quality of life scores, range of movement and risk of complications between the DS and the DP groups. Patients in the DS group had improved shoulder function and constant shoulder score (CSS) at 3 months post-surgery (WMD, 6.36; 95% CI, 1.06-11.65). No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of CSS and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scores at 12 and 24 months post-operatively. The activity of daily living (ADL) score was significantly improved in the DS group at 3 (WMD, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.40-2.06), 6 (WMD, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25) and 12 months (WMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.18-1.47) after the surgery. The present results suggested that DS and DP surgical approaches were associated with similar clinical outcomes. The DS approach was associated with certain perioperative benefits, as well as reduced time to bone union, improved shoulder function in the early postoperative period and improved ADL scores. These benefits may be considered while choosing between these two surgical approaches.
