Advertisement
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

Is the stemless humeral head replacement clinically and radiographically a secure equivalent to standard stem humeral head replacement in the long-term follow-up? A prospective randomized trial

Published:November 15, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.001

      Background

      Stemless humeral head replacement represents a young generation of shoulder arthroplasty. This study evaluated the differences of this new stemless design compared with the fourth-generation standard stemmed design.

      Methods

      Total shoulder arthroplasty was performed in 20 patients with a stemless shoulder prosthesis (group 1) and in 20 patients with a standard stem humeral head replacement (group 2). Twenty-nine patients were examined clinically and radiographically at a minimum follow-up of 2 years and a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Functional results were assessed using the age- and gender-related Constant Score (CS). The radiographic analysis used native x-rays in 3 planes.

      Results

      The postoperative CS improved significantly in both groups, with no significant difference between the minimum of 2-year and 5-year follow-up. The difference in the CS, its subcategories, and active range of motion between the implant groups was not significant. A significant difference was observed in the radiographic analysis for the zone adjacent to the humeral calcar, with a lower bone mineral density in 41% of group 2 and in 0% in group 1. Radiolucent lines were statistically more frequent in group 2. No statistical differences were observed between the implant groups for the change of the inclination angle, the medial offset, and the lateral offset.

      Conclusion

      Both implants showed consistently good functional and radiologic results without a significant difference and achieved an anatomic reconstruction of the humeral head geometry in the coronal plane.

      Level of evidence

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Barvencik F.
        • Gebauer M.
        • Beil F.T.
        • Vettorazzi E.
        • Mumme M.
        • Rupprecht M.
        • et al.
        Age- and sex-related changes of humeral head microarchitecture: histomorphometric analysis of 60 human specimens.
        J Orthop Res. 2010; 28: 18-26
        • Berth A.
        • Pap G.
        Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis: a comparison of the functional outcome after a minimum of two years follow-up.
        J Orthop Traumatol. 2013; 14: 31-37
        • Berth A.
        • Pap G.
        • Lohmann C.
        Midterm results of a stemless shoulder prosthesis for different indications.
        Obere Extremität. 2012; 7: 83-90
        • Brunner U.H.
        • Fruth M.
        • Rückl K.
        • Magosch P.
        • Tauber M.
        • Resch H.
        • et al.
        The stemless Eclipse prosthesis – indications and mid-term results. A prospective multicenter study.
        Obere Extremität. 2012; 7: 22-28
        • Cil A.
        • Veillette C.J.
        • Sanchez-Sotelo J.
        • Sperling J.W.
        • Schleck C.D.
        • Cofield R.H.
        Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 143-150
        • Constant C.R.
        • Murley A.H.
        A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; 214: 160-164
        • Habermeyer P.
        • Lichtenberg S.
        • Tauber M.
        • Magosch P.
        Midterm results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24: 1463-1472
        • Huguet D.
        • DeClercq G.
        • Rio B.
        • Teissier J.
        • Zipoli B.
        • The TESS Group
        Results of a new stemless shoulder prosthesis: radiologic proof of maintained fixation and stability after a minimum of three years' follow-up.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 847-852
        • Magosch P.
        • Habermeyer P.
        • Bachmaier S.
        • Metcalfe N.
        Biomechanische Grundlagen des metaphysär verankerten Humeruskopfersatzes.
        Obere Extremität. 2012; 7: 11-16
        • Mariotti U.
        • Motta P.
        • Stucchi A.
        • Ponti di Sant'angelo F.
        Stemmed versus stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a preliminary report and short-term results.
        Musculoskelet Surg. 2014; 98: 195-200
        • Montoya F.
        • Magosch P.
        • Scheiderer B.
        • Lichtenberg S.
        • Melean P.
        • Habermeyer P.
        Midterm results of a total shoulder prosthesis fixed with a cementless glenoid component.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22: 628-635
        • Nagels J.
        • Stokdijk M.
        • Rozing P.M.
        Stress shielding and bone resorption in shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12: 35-39
        • Orr T.E.
        • Carter D.R.
        Stress analyses of joint arthroplasty in the proximal humerus.
        J Orthop Res. 1985; 3: 360-371
        • Pearl M.L.
        • Kurutz S.
        Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81: 660-671
        • Preidler K.W.
        • Brossmann J.
        • Daenen B.
        • Pedowitz R.
        • De Maeseneer M.
        • Trudell D.
        • et al.
        Measurements of cortical thickness in experimentally created endosteal bone lesions: a comparison of radiography, CT, MR imaging, and anatomic sections.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 168: 1501-1505
        • Quental C.
        • Folgado J.
        • Fernandes P.R.
        • Monteiro J.
        Bone remodelling analysis of the humerus after a shoulder arthroplasty.
        Med Eng Phys. 2012; 34: 1132-1138
        • Robertson D.D.
        • Yuan J.
        • Bigliani L.U.
        • Flatow E.L.
        • Yamaguchi K.
        Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82-A: 1594-1602
        • Sanchez-Sotelo J.
        • O'Driscoll S.W.
        • Torchia M.E.
        • Cofield R.H.
        • Rowland C.M.
        Radiographic assessment of cemented humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10: 526-531
        • Schoch C.
        • Huth J.
        • Aghajev E.
        • Bauer G.
        • Mauch F.
        Die metaphysär verankerte Prothese bei posttraumatischer und primärer Omarthrose. Kurzfristige Ergebnisse.
        Obere Extremität. 2011; 4: 275-281
        • Takase K.
        • Yamamoto K.
        • Imakiire A.
        • Burkhead Jr, W.Z.
        The radiographic study in the relationship of the glenohumeral joint.
        J Orthop Res. 2004; 22: 298-305
        • Van Rietbergen B.
        • Huiskes R.
        • Weinans H.
        • Sumner D.R.
        • Turner T.M.
        • Galante J.O.
        ESB Research Award 1992. The mechanism of bone remodeling and resorption around press-fitted THA stems.
        J Biomech. 1993; 26: 369-382
        • Verborgt O.
        • El-Abiad R.
        • Gazielly D.F.
        Long-term results of uncemented humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16: S13-8
        • Walch G.
        • Badet R.
        • Boulahia A.
        • Khoury A.
        Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
        J Arthroplasty. 1999; 14: 756-760
        • Yian E.H.
        • Ramappa A.J.
        • Arneberg O.
        • Gerber C.
        The Constant score in normal shoulders.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 128-133