Anatomic stemless shoulder arthroplasty and related outcomes: a systematic review

Clinical and radiologic outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty using Arthrex Eclipse stemless humeral component with minimum 2 years' follow-up

BACKGROUND

Stemless humeral components benefit from less morbidity, better reproduction of the humeral anatomy, ease of revision, and fewer stem-related complications. Encouraging results are available up to 9 years after surgery from the designer's series. This is an independent study of 100 consecutive Eclipse stemless prostheses for osteoarthritis with a minimum 2-year follow-up (range, 2-6 years).

METHODS

We included only total shoulder arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) after 2 years. Secondary outcome measures were change in shoulder range of movement and radiographic analysis of prosthesis size and position.

RESULTS

The mean OSS at 2 years was 38 of 48, with a mean improvement of +19 points (range, +17 to +22 points; P < .001). There was no significant deterioration in OSS after 3 or 4 years' follow-up. Statistically significant improvement was seen in arm elevation and external rotation (P < .001). There were 5 reoperations-1 for impingement of the biceps stump and 4 revisions to reverse arthroplasty for cuff failure. Of the prostheses, 92% were sized within 2 mm of the anatomic head size, and in 76% of prostheses, the center of rotation was within 3 mm of the native anatomy. An incomplete radiolucent line was present in zone B (around the cage screw) in a single patient at 2 years following surgery. There were no cases of loosening or infection.

CONCLUSION

The functional and radiographic outcomes of Eclipse total shoulder replacement are excellent. We were able to accurately reproduce the native anatomy in the majority of cases, with no implant loosening, at 2 to 6 years' follow-up.

Bone remodelling of the humerus after a resurfacing and a stemless shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

New implant designs, such as resurfacing and stemless implants, have been developed to improve the long-term outcomes of the shoulder arthroplasty. However, it is not yet fully understood if their influence on the bone load distribution can compromise the long-term stability of the implant due to bone mass changes. Using three-dimensional finite element models, the aim of the present study was to analyse the bone remodelling process of the humerus after the introduction of resurfacing and stemless implants based on the Global C.A.P. and Sidus Stem-Free designs, respectively.

METHODS

The 3D geometric model of the humerus was generated from the CT data of the Visible Human Project and the resurfacing and stemless implants were modelled in Solidworks. Considering a native humerus model, a humerus model with the resurfacing implant, and a humerus model with the stemless implant, three finite element models were developed in Abaqus. Bone remodelling simulations were performed considering healthy and poor bone quality conditions. The loading condition considered comprised 6 load cases of standard shoulder movements, including muscle and joint reaction forces estimated by a multibody model of the upper limb.

FINDINGS

The results showed similar levels of bone resorption for the resurfacing and stemless implants for common humeral regions. The regions underneath the head of the resurfacing implant, unique to this design, showed the largest bone loss. For both implants, bone resorption was more pronounced for the poor bone quality condition than for the healthy bone quality condition.

INTERPRETATION

The stemless implant lost less density at the fixation site, which might suggest that these implants may be better supported in the long-term than the resurfacing implants. However, further investigation is necessary to allow definite recommendations.

Primary Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty: What Can Be Learned From 359 Cases That Were Surgically Revised?

BACKGROUND

Primary shoulder hemiarthroplasty is used to address a range of glenohumeral disorders, including fracture, arthritis, avascular necrosis, and capsulorrhaphy arthropathy; some patients with hemiarthroplasties undergo revision surgery for persistent pain or residual shoulder dysfunction. The literature does not clarify the features of the hemiarthroplasties having repeat surgery in a way that can guide surgeons' efforts to minimize the need for revision. To help address this gap, we analyzed the characteristics of patients from our region for whom we performed surgical revision of a prior humeral hemiarthroplasty QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the common characteristics of shoulder hemiarthroplasties having a revision? (2) What are the common characteristics of the subset of revised shoulder hemiarthroplasties that were performed for fracture? (3) What are characteristics of the subset of all revised hemiarthroplasties that were associated with glenoid bone erosion?

METHODS

Data for 983 patients for whom we performed a surgical revision of any type of shoulder arthroplasty between January 1991 and January 2017 were identified in our longitudinally maintained institutional arthroplasty revision database. In each case, revision had been elected by shared patient and surgeon decision-making after consideration of the disorder, degree of compromised comfort and function, treatment alternatives, and the risks of surgery. Of these 983 patients, 359 (37%) had a revision of a prior primary hemiarthroplasty; these patients were the subjects of this investigation. In this group of patients, we investigated the patient demographics, shoulder characteristics, prerevision radiographic findings, and findings at revision surgery. No patients were excluded. The patients having revision of primary hemiarthroplasties had severe loss of self-assessed shoulder comfort and function, with Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores averaging 2.2 ± 2.2 of the maximum score of 12. The majority of these patients (81%) were women. The medical records of these 359 patients were abstracted to determine the diagnosis for the index primary hemiarthroplasty, clinical characteristics before surgery, and findings at surgical revision. One hundred twelve of the arthroplasties had been performed for fracture-related diagnoses; a subgroup analysis was performed on these patients. Two hundred seventy-three of the 359 patients (76%) had plain radiographs performed within 3 months before revision surgery that were adequate for assessing the radiographic characteristics of the glenoid, humerus, humeral component, and glenohumeral relationships; a subgroup analysis was performed on these patients. The degree of glenoid erosion was measured by a single observer in accordance with established criteria: Grade 1 is no erosion, Grade 2 is erosion limited to subchondral bone, Grade 3 is moderate erosion with medialization, and Grade 4 is medialization beyond the coracoid base. Some patients were included in both of these subgroups.

RESULTS

Common characteristics of the revised hemiarthroplasties included female sex (81%), rotator cuff (89 of 359; 25%) or subscapularis (81 of 359; 23%) failure, problems related to prior fracture (154 of 359; 43%), glenoid erosion 125 of 359; 35%), and component malposition (89 of 359; 25%). Hemiarthroplasties performed for fracture-related problems often were associated with tuberosity malunion or nonunion (58 of 79; 73%) and decentering of the humeral component on the glenoid surface (45 of 71; 63%). Major erosion of the bony glenoid (Grade 3 or 4) was more common in decentered hemiarthroplasties (42 of 102; 41%) than for centered hemiarthroplasties (36 of 146; 25%) (Fisher's exact p = 0.008) and more common for hemiarthroplasties positioned in valgus (28 of 50; 56%) than for those positioned in neutral or varus (40 of 188; 21%) (Fishers' exact p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that some revisions of primary hemiarthroplasties may be avoided by surgical techniques directed at centering the prosthetic humeral articular surface on the glenoid concavity using proper humeral component positioning and soft tissue balance, by avoiding valgus positioning of the humeral component, and by managing glenoid disorders with a primary glenohumeral arthroplasty rather than a hemiarthroplasty alone. When durable security of the subscapularis, rotator cuff, and tuberosities is in question, the surgeon may consider a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Bleeding in primary shoulder arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this investigation was to analyse "total blood loss" (TBL), "blood transfusion rate" (BT) and the "amount of transfused blood units" (BU) between the different primary shoulder arthroplasty (SA) types: reverse, anatomical and stemless. Only primary SA was included. Further goal was to identify risk factors for TBL, amount of BU and BT rate.

METHODS

A retrospective charts analysis of patients who received primary SA for degenerative shoulder pathology in our institution between 2004 and 2016 was performed. The demographic data, co-morbidities, haemoglobin and hematocrit level, BT rate, amount of transfused BU etc. were collected. TBL was estimated. Linear regression, log-linear poisson regression and logistic regression were used to compare the outcomes TBL, amount of transfused BU and BT rate, respectively, between different prosthesis types.

RESULTS

Of 278 patients included in this study 209 received reverse, 57 anatomical and 12 stemless SA. Mean TBL was 392.7 ml in reverse, 394.6 ml in anatomical and 298.3 ml in stemless SA. The BT rate and mean amount of BU were, respectively, 14.4% and 0.32 in reverse and 8.77% and 0.23 in anatomical SA. None of the patients with stemless arthroplasty received BT. Significant risk factors for elevated TBL are operation time, higher BMI, male sex. Significant risk parameters for BT and higher amount of transfused BU are low BMI, cemented arthroplasty, coronary heart disease, ASA score > 2 and previous therapy with vitamin K antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Although there were little differences between the blood transfusion rates in reverse vs. anatomical arthroplasty, there was no difference in total blood loss between these different prosthesis types. None of the patients with stemless arthroplasty received blood transfusion. There are various risk factors affecting total blood loss and blood transfusion rate. However, risk parameters influencing blood transfusion may be different to them affecting total blood loss.

Restoration of the joint geometry and outcome after stemless TESS shoulder arthroplasty

AIM

To evaluate the joint geometry and the clinical outcome of stemless, anatomical shoulder arthroplasty with the TESS system.

METHODS

Twenty-one shoulders with a mean follow-up 18 of months were included. On scaled digital radiographs the premorbid center of rotation (CoR) was assessed and compared to the CoR of the prosthesis by using the MediCAD^® software. Additionally, the pre- and post-operative geometry of the CoR was assessed in relation to the glenoid, the acromion as well as to the proximal humerus. Radiological changes, such as radiolucencies, were also assessed. Clinical outcome was assessed with the Constant and DASH score.

RESULTS

Both, the Constant and DASH scores improved significantly from 11% to 75% and from 70 to 30 points, P < 0.01 respectively. There were no significant differences regarding age, etiology, cemented or metal-backed glenoids, etc. (P > 0.05). The pre- and postoperative humeral offset, the lateral glenohumeral offset, the height of the CoR, the acromiohumeral distance as well as neck-shaft angle showed no significant changes (P > 0.05). The mean deviation of the CoR of the prosthesis from the anatomic center was 1.0 ± 2.8 mm. Three cases showed a medial deviation of more than 3 mm. These deviations of 5.1, 5.7 and 7.6 mm and were caused by an inaccurate humeral neck cut. These 3 patients showed a relatively poor outcome scoring.

CONCLUSION

TESS arthroplasty allows an anatomical joint reconstruction with a very good outcome. Outliers described in this study sensitize the surgeon for an accurate humeral neck cut.

Nine-year outcome after anatomic stemless shoulder prosthesis: clinical and radiologic results

BACKGROUND

Several stemless shoulder implants are available on the market, but only a few studies have presented results with sufficient mid- to long-term follow-up. The present study evaluated clinical and radiologic outcomes 9 years after anatomic stemless shoulder replacement.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study evaluating the stemless shoulder prosthesis since 2005. Anatomic stemless shoulder replacement using a single prosthesis was performed in 49 shoulders; 17 underwent total shoulder replacement, and 32 underwent hemiarthroplasty. Forty-three patients were clinically and radiologically monitored after a mean of 9 years (range, 90-127 months; follow-up rate, 88%). The indications for shoulder replacement were primary osteoarthritis in 7 shoulders, post-traumatic in 24, instability in 7, cuff tear arthropathy in 2, postinfectious arthritis in 1, and revision arthroplasty in 2.

RESULTS

The Constant-Murley Score improved significantly from 52% to 79% (P < .0001). The active range of motion also increased significantly for flexion from 101° to 118° (P = .022), for abduction from 79° to 105° (P = .02), and for external rotation from 21° to 43° (P < .0001). Radiologic evaluation revealed incomplete radiolucency in 1 patient without clinical significance or further intervention. No revision caused by loosening or countersinking of the humeral implant was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The 9-year outcome after stemless shoulder replacement is comparable to that of third- and fourth-generation standard shoulder arthroplasty.