Radnay, C. S. et al. Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 16, 396-402
The optimal choice for the treatment of end-stage primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains controversial, with alternatives including total shoulder replacement (TSR) and humeral head replacement (HHR). The objective of this review was to analyze the effect of TSR compared with HHR on rates of pain relief, range of motion, patient satisfaction, and revision surgery in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We searched computerized databases for clinical studies published between 1966 and 2004 that reported on shoulder replacement for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Pain data were converted to a 100-point score. Outcome assessment data were pooled when possible, and analyses via normal test statistics were performed. We identified 23 studies, with a total of 1952 patients and mean follow-up of 43.4 months (range, 30-116.4 months). The mean level of evidence was 3.73. Among the 23 studies, 7 different outcome instruments were used. Of the 23 studies, 14 (n = 1185) reported pain relief, 15 (n = 1080) reported range of motion, 12 (n = 969) reported patient satisfaction, and 14 (n = 1474) reported revision surgery. Compared with HHR, TSR provided significantly greater pain relief (P < .0001), forward elevation (P < .0001), gain in forward elevation (P < .0001), gain in external rotation (P = .0002), and patient satisfaction (P < .0001). Furthermore, only 6.5% of all TSRs required revision surgery, which was significantly lower than the percentage for all patients undergoing HHR (10.2%) (P < .025). Only 1.7% of all-polyethylene glenoid components required revision. On the basis of this review and analysis, in comparison with HHR, TSR for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis significantly improves pain relief, range of motion, and satisfaction and has a significantly lower rate of revision surgery. Inconsistent outcome reporting and poor study design may warrant standardization of outcome instruments and improved study design in the future.
"In a previous study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), we reported superior results in terms of prosthesis survival with shoulder hemiprostheses (HPs) than with total prostheses (TPs), both anatomic and reverse (Fevang et al. 2009). However, several other studies have shown better functional results with the use of TPs than with HPs (Bryant et al. 2005, Pfahler et al. 2006, Radnay et al. 2007), and in a recent report from the NAR in which functional outcome was evaluated , patients with HPs came out worst for all variables measured (Fevang et al. 2013). Based on these studies and treatment practice in other countries, a change in treatment policy has taken place in Norway—towards reduced use of HPs and increasing use of TPs, both anatomic and reversed types. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background and purpose — Previously, implant survival of total shoulder prostheses was reported to be inferior to that of hemiprostheses. However, the use of total prostheses has increased in Norway due to reported good functional results. On this background, we wanted to study implant survival of 4 major shoulder prosthesis types in Norway between 1994 and 2012.
Patients and methods — The study population comprised 4,173 patients with shoulder replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, including 2,447 hemiprostheses (HPs), 444 anatomic total prostheses (ATPs), 454 resurfacing prostheses (RPs), and 828 reversed total prostheses (RTPs). Three time periods were compared: 1994–1999, 2000–2005, and 2006–2012. Kaplan-Meier failure curves were used to compare implant failure rates for subgroups of patients, and adjusted risks of revision were calculated using Cox regression analysis.
Results — For prostheses inserted from 2006 through 2012, the 5-year survival rates were 95% for HPs (as opposed to 94% in 1994–1999), 95% for ATPs (75% in 1994–1999), 87% for RPs (96% in 1994–1999), and 93% for RTPs (91% in 1994–1999). During the study period, the implant survival improved significantly for ATPs (p < 0.001). A tendency of better results with acute fracture and worse results in sequelae after previous fractures was seen in all time periods.
Interpretation — The 5-year implant survival rates were good with all prosthesis types, and markedly improved for anatomic total prostheses in the last 2 study periods. The better functional results with total shoulder prostheses than with hemiprostheses support the trend towards increased use of total shoulder prostheses.
"Due to the limited lifespan of these implants, evaluation of patient suitability for any of the aforementioned procedures is necessary prior to committing to humeral head resurfacing or hemiarthroplasty. Furthermore, with evidence supporting better outcomes of primary total shoulder arthroplasty over isolated hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis [45, 46], a thorough evaluation of glenoid sided pathology including articular cartilage degeneration and bone loss is imperative. The procedure is performed through a standard deltopectoral approach to expose the proximal humerus. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Recurrent shoulder instability and resultant glenoid and humeral head bone loss are not infrequently encountered in the population today, specifically in young, athletic patients. This review on the management of bone loss in recurrent glenohumeral instability discusses the relevant shoulder anatomy that provides stability to the shoulder joint, relevant history and physical examination findings pertinent to recurrent shoulder instability, and the proper radiological imaging choices in its workup. Operative treatments that can be used to treat both glenoid and humeral head bone loss are outlined. These include coracoid transfer procedures and allograft/autograft reconstruction at the glenoid, as well as humeral head disimpaction/humeroplasty, remplissage, humeral osseous allograft reconstruction, rotational osteotomy, partial humeral head arthroplasty, and hemiarthroplasty on the humeral side. Clinical outcomes studies reporting general results of these techniques are highlighted.
"The results of 23 studies have been summarized in a systematic review (Radnay et al. 2007) reporting that 7% of TSAs and 10% of SHAs were revised without the follow-up times being specified. Revision was only required in 2% of the TSAs using an all-polyethylene glenoid component. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose
We used patient-reported outcome and risk of revision to compare hemiarthroplasty (HA) with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) with resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
Patients and methods
We included all patients reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) between January 2006 and December 2010. 1,209 arthroplasties in 1,109 patients were eligible. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS) was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 1 year postoperatively. For simplicity of presentation, the raw scores were converted to a percentage of the maximum score. Revision rates were calculated by checking reported revisions to the DSR until December 2011. WOOS and risk of revision were adjusted for age, sex, previous surgery, and type of osteoarthritis.
There were 113 TSAs and 1096 HAs (837 RHAs and 259 SHAs). Patients treated with TSA generally had a better WOOS, exceeding the predefined minimal clinically important difference, at 1 year (mean difference 10, p < 0.001). RHA had a better WOOS than SHA (mean difference 5, p = 0.02), but the difference did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. There were no statistically significant differences in revision rate or in adjusted risk of revision between any of the groups.
Our results are in accordance with the results from other national shoulder registries and the results published in systematic reviews favoring TSA in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, this registry study had certain limitations and the results should be interpreted carefully.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.