Back to Authors

Lädermann, Alexandre

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2797-8936

Mayo Clinic

the Swiss Orthopaedics Shoulder Elbow and Expert Group

Citations 2

The role of platelet-rich plasma in shoulder pathologies: a critical review of the literature
Schär, Michael , Grezda, Kushtrim , _, _, _, _, Bouaicha, Samy , Buess, Eduard, Bühler, Martin, Cikes, Alec, Farron, Alain , Jost, Bernhard , Lädermann, Alexandre , Meyer, Philipp T. , Puskàs, Gàbor, Riand, N., Schneeberger, Alberto G. , Simmen, Beat R., Wieser, Karl , Wirth, Barbara , Lädermann, Alexandre , Lädermann, Alexandre , Rosso, Claudio , Morrey, Mark E. , _, _, _, _, Candrian, Christian , Cunningham, Grégory James , Flury, Matthias P. , Hoffmeyer, Pierre , Holzer, Nicolas , Müller, Andreas Marc , Zumstein, Matthias A.

EFORT Open Reviews | April 25, 2023 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 213-222

10.1530/eor-22-0104 Get It

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a revolutionary treatment that harnesses the regenerative power of the body's own platelets to promote healing and tissue regeneration. While PRP therapy has emerged as a promising option for augmenting biologic healing in the shoulder, the complexity of shoulder disorders makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of PRP across different conditions and stages of disease. Our comprehensive review of twenty-four studies highlights the current state of PRP therapy in shoulder pathologies, revealing a wide variety of number of patients, control groups and results. Despite these challenges, the regenerative potential of PRP therapy is moderate in some conditions, with numerous studies demonstrating the positive effects. In conclusion, the authors of this study recommend the use of PRP therapy for adhesive capsulitis and rotator cuff repair of medium to large tears. However, they do not recommend the use of PRP for subacromial impingement or rotator cuff tears. It is up to the clinician's discretion to decide whether PRP therapy is appropriate for individual cases. However, there is still insufficient evidence to support the inclusion of PRP therapy in treatment protocols for other shoulder disorders. Therefore, further research is needed to fully explore the potential of PRP therapy in the treatment of various shoulder conditions.
Radiographic parameters associated with excellent versus poor range of motion outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty
Lädermann, Alexandre , Parsons, Bradford O. , Tokish, John M. , Denard, Patrick J. , Lädermann, Alexandre , Lädermann, Alexandre , Denard, Patrick J , Haidamous, Georges , Hartzler, Robert U. , Lederman, Evan

Shoulder & Elbow | July 10, 2020 | Volume: 14 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 39-47

10.1177/1758573220936234 Get It

Background The purpose was to evaluate the relationship of component size and position to postoperative range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The hypothesis was that increased lateralization, larger glenospheres, and a decreased acromiohumeral distance would be associated with excellent postoperative range of motion. Methods A retrospective multicenter study was performed at a minimum of one year postoperatively on 160 patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° humeral component. Outcomes were stratified based on postoperative forward flexion and external rotation into excellent ( n = 42), defined as forward flexion >140° and external rotation > 30°, or poor ( n = 36), defined as forward flexion <100° and external rotation < 15°. Radiographic measurements and component features were compared between the two groups. Results A larger glenosphere size was associated with an excellent outcome ( p = 0.009). A 2-mm posterior offset humeral cup ( p = 0.012) and an increased inferior glenosphere overhang (3.1 mm vs 1.4 mm; p = 0.002) were also associated with excellent outcomes. Humeral lateralization and distalization were not associated with an excellent outcome. Conclusion: Larger glenosphere size and inferior positioning as well as posterior humeral offset are associated with improved postoperative range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Level of Evidence Level 3, retrospective comparative study.