Total shoulder arthroplasty with nonspherical humeral head and inlay glenoid replacement: clinical results comparing concentric and nonconcentric glenoid stages in primary shoulder arthritis.
HemiCAP OVO
Primary total shoulder arthroplasty
glenoid morphology
inlay glenoid
nonspherical humeral head
Journal
JSES open access
ISSN: 2468-6026
Titre abrégé: JSES Open Access
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101738952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
entrez:
12
11
2019
pubmed:
12
11
2019
medline:
12
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Glenoid morphology can influence the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty. This study examines the results of a new technique according to preoperative glenoid staging. We hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in outcomes between Levine concentric (Walch A) and Levine nonconcentric (Walch B) glenoids treated for primary glenohumeral arthritis using nonspherical humeral head and inlay glenoid replacement. This retrospective case series included 31 shoulders in 29 patients (25 male, 4 female), with an average age of 58.5 years. Outcomes included the Penn Shoulder Score (PSS), visual analog scale for pain (VAS-Pain), range of motion, radiographic analysis, and complications. Inclusion criteria were primary glenohumeral arthritis, intact rotator cuff, and no prior open shoulder surgeries. Mean follow-up was 42.6 months (range, 24-74 months). The study included 7 concentric and 24 nonconcentric glenoids. Outcomes comparison showed no statistically significant differences in PSS domains including Pain ( Nonspherical shoulder arthroplasty with inlay glenoid replacement demonstrated excellent clinical benefits for both concentric and nonconcentric glenoids. The technique appears to be a promising option for glenohumeral arthritis even in the presence of posterior glenoid erosion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Glenoid morphology can influence the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty. This study examines the results of a new technique according to preoperative glenoid staging. We hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference in outcomes between Levine concentric (Walch A) and Levine nonconcentric (Walch B) glenoids treated for primary glenohumeral arthritis using nonspherical humeral head and inlay glenoid replacement.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective case series included 31 shoulders in 29 patients (25 male, 4 female), with an average age of 58.5 years. Outcomes included the Penn Shoulder Score (PSS), visual analog scale for pain (VAS-Pain), range of motion, radiographic analysis, and complications. Inclusion criteria were primary glenohumeral arthritis, intact rotator cuff, and no prior open shoulder surgeries.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean follow-up was 42.6 months (range, 24-74 months). The study included 7 concentric and 24 nonconcentric glenoids. Outcomes comparison showed no statistically significant differences in PSS domains including Pain (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Nonspherical shoulder arthroplasty with inlay glenoid replacement demonstrated excellent clinical benefits for both concentric and nonconcentric glenoids. The technique appears to be a promising option for glenohumeral arthritis even in the presence of posterior glenoid erosion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31709354
doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.07.009
pii: S2468-6026(19)30030-0
pmc: PMC6834987
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
145-153Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):1947-56
pubmed: 16140808
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 May-Jun;13(3):266-71
pubmed: 15111895
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Jul;22(7):894-900
pubmed: 23312293
Acta Orthop. 2005 Jun;76(3):392-6
pubmed: 16156468
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Jul;84(7):1174-82
pubmed: 12107318
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 30;17(1):376
pubmed: 27577859
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Dec;24(12):1888-93
pubmed: 26253352
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):123-30
pubmed: 20797877
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 May;24(5):705-10
pubmed: 25306496
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;14(5):485-91
pubmed: 16194739
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6S):S50-S57
pubmed: 29776472
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Mar;58(2):195-201
pubmed: 1254624
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1526-33
pubmed: 22445158
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1463-72
pubmed: 25870114
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Nov;474(11):2496-2510
pubmed: 27457623
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Oct;133(10):1331-9
pubmed: 23852591
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91(5):1228-38
pubmed: 19411474
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997 Sep-Oct;6(5):449-54
pubmed: 9356934
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Jul-Aug;11(4):331-8
pubmed: 12195250
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Jan;22(1):115-21
pubmed: 22591623
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004 Jan;19(1):16-23
pubmed: 14659925
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1423-32
pubmed: 23510747
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6S):S58-S64
pubmed: 29501223
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jul;26(7):1113-1120
pubmed: 28359697
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1084-93
pubmed: 26895598
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1601-6
pubmed: 27282738
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Jun;21(6):795-803
pubmed: 22173268
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Feb;22(2):206-14
pubmed: 22819578
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 May;24(5):682-90
pubmed: 25487904
Int Orthop. 2015 Feb;39(2):277-84
pubmed: 25267431
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Sep;14(6):756-60
pubmed: 10512449
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jan 4;94(1):68-76
pubmed: 22218384
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Mar;83(2):213-21
pubmed: 11284568
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Nov-Dec;10(6):526-31
pubmed: 11743530
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jul;24(7):1049-60
pubmed: 25601383
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1533-1538
pubmed: 28395944
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006 Mar;36(3):138-51
pubmed: 16596890
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 May;21(5):675-84
pubmed: 21719312
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010 Jun;18(6):375-82
pubmed: 20511443
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Jul-Aug;16(4):396-402
pubmed: 17582789
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Apr 6;98(7):552-60
pubmed: 27053583