Humeral head resurfacing is associated with less pain and clinically equivalent functional outcomes compared with stemmed hemiarthroplasty at mid-term follow-up

Long-term survival of resurfacing humeral hemiarthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The indication for shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty is controversial, and survival of these implants is somewhat inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term survivorship of resurfacing humeral head implants (RHHIs) and determine risk factors for complications and revisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study consisted of 275 cases and two types of RHHIs. The survival rate was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression for risk factor analysis. Demographic factors were studied, and the change in the humerus centre of rotation (COR) was measured.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 8.7 years (SD 2.7 months, range 2.8-15.9 years). The mean age of the patients was 67.6 years (SD 9.6, range 33.5-84.9). Ten-year cumulative RHHI survival was 94.1%. The cumulative estimate without any complication was 98.9% at 5 years, 80.0% at 10 years and at 15 years it was 61.5%. The most common complication was persistent pain in 13.8% of the RHHIs. The risk factors for complications and revisions were implant type, preoperative conditions and change of COR > 5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

RRHIs showed excellent long-term survival, but many complications were found. The most common complication was persistent pain, which seemed to be caused by a change of COR and was more related to one type of implant.

Humeral Head Resurfacing for Isolated Primary Humeral Osteoarthritis With a Large Chondral Defect

Primary, isolated humeral head arthritis or focal chondral defects are uncommon and difficult to diagnose preoperatively. While these lesions have traditionally been treated with total shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder hemiarthroplasty is a viable option for patients with isolated humeral head disease and minimal degenerative changes in the glenoid. This approach can be performed in a minimally invasive fashion, which preserves bone stock and native biomechanics, and can be beneficial if conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty is required in the future and avoids risk of glenoid loosening or failure in younger and more active individuals. In this Technical Note and accompanying video, we describe our technique of humeral head resurfacing in a patient with isolated primary humeral osteoarthritis with a large focal chondral defect in the humeral head.

[Interpretation of 2020 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) on the Management of Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline]

Based on peer-reviewed systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between January 2000 and June 2019 with regards to the management of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis (GJO), the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) established the clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of GJO. The guidelines provided practice recommendations including risk factors, non-surgical treatment, surgical treatment, prosthesis selection, and perioperative management for GJO. The recommendations were graded according to different evidence strength. This paper interprets the guidline in order to provide reference for domestic medical workers.

Outcome and revision rate of uncemented humeral head resurfacing: Mid-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of pain and disability affecting nearly a third of the world’s population over 60 years of age. As in other joints, shoulder arthroplasty appears to be the most effective treatment. The implant design has evolved during time transitioning to shorter humeral stem lengths or even stemless components.

AIM

To evaluate the medium-term outcome and survival of a cementless humeral head resurfacing (HHR) in a group of patients affected with OA or avascular necrosis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data using HHR in 23 patients (15 female and 8 male) after a 7.4 year follow-up. The collected data included clinical and radiographical evaluation. The Constant score, the visual analogue scale, and a clinical evaluation of range of motion were registered pre- and postoperatively. Fifteen patients affected with OA (2 cases of mild, 6 moderate, and 7 severe) and 10 with avascular necrosis (stage III according to Cruess classification) were enrolled. X-rays were evaluated to detect loosening signs, degenerative changes, and superior humeral head migration. Magnetic resonance preoperatively was also performed to assess the rotator cuff status. Tendon integrity was mandatory to implant the HHR.

RESULTS

In total, 19 patients (21 shoulders) completed the follow-up. Data on 4 shoulders, in 4 patients, were lost because of prosthesis failure. The global revision rate was 16%. A statistically significant improvement in the mean Constant score, visual analogue scale, and range of motion have been reported. No signs of loosening were registered, while in 12 cases a glenoid erosion was found. The osteophytes appeared 7 times on the humeral side and 12 on the glenoid. Superior humeral migration was recorded in only 1 case.

CONCLUSION

HHR remains a reasonable option in patients with an intact rotator cuff for the treatment of OA and avascular necrosis.

Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty versus stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

Background

Though total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has been an acknowledged treatment option for glenohumeral osteoarthritis, resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) may be preferred in some circumstances by surgeons, especially for treating young or active patients. However, decision-making between the RHA and SHA is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically compare two surgical procedures in terms of postoperative functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM), pain relief, complication rates, risk of revision.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 1, 2020, for all articles that compared the clinical effectiveness and safety of RHA with SHA. All eligible studies were selected based on certain screening criteria. Two investigators independently conducted the quality assessment and extracted the data. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used for pooled results according to the degree of heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed by employing Stata software 14.0.

Results

A total of six comparative studies involving 2568 shoulders (1356 RHA and 1212 SHA) were included in the final analysis. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year in each study. Pooled results showed that RHA was associated with a better visual analog scale (SMD 0.61, p = 0.001) but higher revision rates (OR 1.50, p = 0.016) when compared to SHA. There were no significant differences in functional outcomes, such as Constant-Murley score (SMD 0.06, P = 0.878), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (SMD 0.05, P = 0.880), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (SMD 0.43, p = 0.258) and quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (SMD 0.06, p = 0.669). In addition, no differences were observed in forward flexion (SMD 0.16, p = 0.622), external rotation (SMD -0.17, P = 0.741) and overall complication rates (OR 1.42, p = 0.198).

Conclusion

This is the first meta-analysis to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of RHA in comparison with SHA for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The results demonstrated that the two surgical techniques were equivalent in terms of postoperative functional outcomes and complication rate. However, RHA provided greater pain relief but posed a higher risk for revision than SHA. More high-quality studies with long-term follow up are warranted to give more convincing evidence.