Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: A systematic review
ABSTRACT 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.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Understanding the pattern of recovery and expected rate of change after shoulder arthroplasty is helpful to clinicians and patients for setting realistic expectations and goals. The purpose of this study was to describe the pattern of recovery over a 2-year period for patients receiving either a Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) or Humeral Head Replacement (HHR).BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 09/2014; 15(1):306. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-306 · 1.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose The aim of this study was to analyse the short- and medium-term clinical and radiographic results of cementless humeral head resurfacing in combination with a cemented glenoid component. Methods Thirty-five patients with a mean age of 65 years (range 42-84) and a mean follow-up of three years (two to six) were followed up. The Constant score with its subgroups as well as shoulder motions and complications were recorded. Radiographs in two planes were analysed for loosening of the components. Results Mean Constant score improved from 29 points (6-63) to 70 points (41-89; p Conclusion Cementless humeral surface replacement arthroplasty in combination with a cemented glenoid component leads to an overall satisfactory clinical outcome. However, the high rate of neurological complications found in this study, probably related to difficult glenoid exposure, led us to discontinue this implant configuration.International Orthopaedics 09/2014; 39(2). DOI:10.1007/s00264-014-2540-6 · 2.02 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The number of shoulder arthroplasties performed in the United States has more than doubled in the last decade. Additionally, there has been a trend toward use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as resurfacing humeral head arthroplasty. Thus radiologists will more frequently encounter imaging of shoulder arthroplasty and these new designs. Successful postoperative radiologic evaluation of shoulder reconstructions requires an understanding of their fundamental hardware design, physiologic objective, preoperative imaging assessment, normal postoperative radiologic appearance, and findings and types of complication. This article discusses the designs of prostheses used around the shoulder joint, delineates indications and alternatives for each of the different types of hardware, reviews radiographic and cross-sectional preoperative imaging of shoulder arthroplasty, illustrates normal postoperative imaging findings and measurements, and provides examples of hardware complications.Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology 09/2014; 18(4):448-62. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1384833 · 0.95 Impact Factor