Rotational range of motion of elliptical and spherical heads in shoulder arthroplasty: a dynamic biomechanical evaluation.
Elliptical
Hemiarthroplasty
Humeral head
Prosthesis design
Rotational range of motion
Spherical
Total shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
11
02
2020
accepted:
16
08
2020
pubmed:
1
9
2020
medline:
8
1
2022
entrez:
1
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Elliptical shape humeral head prostheses have been proposed to reflect a more anatomic shoulder replacement. Its effect on the rotational range of motion (ROM) compared to a standard spherical head is still not understood. The purpose was to investigate if there would be a difference in rotational ROM when comparing elliptical and spherical prosthetic heads in a dynamic shoulder model. The authors hypothesized that the use of elliptical heads would result in significantly more rotational ROM compared to the spherical head design. Six fresh-frozen, cadaveric shoulders were evaluated using a dynamic shoulder model. After being tested in the native condition, each specimen underwent 6 conditions in the hemiarthroplasty state: (1) matched-fit spherical head, (2) oversized spherical head, (3) undersized spherical head, (4) matched-fit elliptical head, (5) oversized elliptical head, and (6) undersized elliptical head. Following conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), the 6 prior conditions were rerun. Each condition was tested at 0°, 30° and 60° of glenohumeral abduction. Rotational ROM was quantified using 3-dimensional tracking, while dynamically applying alternating forces for internal and external rotation via the rotator cuff tendons. Elliptical and spherical prosthetic heads showed no significant difference in the degree of the total, internal, and external rotational ROM for both the hemiarthroplasty and TSA state. Conversion from hemiarthroplasty to TSA resulted in less degree of total rotational ROM for both head designs in all abduction positions, without reaching statistical significance. There was a significant decrease in total, internal, and external rotational ROM for both elliptical and spherical heads in every replacement condition, when comparing 0° to 30° and 60° of abduction (P < 0.05, respectively). In a dynamic shoulder model, elliptical and spherical prosthetic head designs showed no significant difference in the degree of the total, internal, and external rotational ROM in both the hemiarthroplasty and TSA state. Controlled laboratory study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32865631
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03587-0
pii: 10.1007/s00402-020-03587-0
pmc: PMC8732933
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
67-76Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s).
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1609-1615
pubmed: 28410956
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Jul-Aug;11(4):331-8
pubmed: 12195250
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Sep;(330):13-30
pubmed: 8804270
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1423-32
pubmed: 23510747
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Sep;25(9):1532-41
pubmed: 27068383
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):955-63
pubmed: 24321169
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):1947-56
pubmed: 16140808
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Oct;72(9):1334-43
pubmed: 2229109
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Apr;77(4):555-63
pubmed: 7713972
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct;87(10):2178-85
pubmed: 16203880
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Mar;25(3):502-9
pubmed: 26597658
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6S):S50-S57
pubmed: 29776472
J Biomech. 1995 May;28(5):489-99
pubmed: 7775486
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Oct;40(10):2248-55
pubmed: 22886689
J Orthop Res. 1996 Nov;14(6):986-93
pubmed: 8982143
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Mar;58(2):195-201
pubmed: 1254624
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Apr;19(3):406-13
pubmed: 20004593
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1463-72
pubmed: 25870114
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Apr;21(4):483-90
pubmed: 21530322
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Aug;79(8):1166-74
pubmed: 9278076
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):73-84
pubmed: 11182740
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1084-93
pubmed: 26895598
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Dec;(285):181-90
pubmed: 1446435
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Feb;26(2):225-232
pubmed: 27856267
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2000 Jun;15(5):306-14
pubmed: 10758290
Int Orthop. 2018 Jun;42(6):1327-1330
pubmed: 29368045
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Apr;74(4):491-500
pubmed: 1583043
J Biomech. 1991;24(7):615-29
pubmed: 1880145
J Biomech. 1995 Jul;28(7):869-74
pubmed: 7657685
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):1919-1926
pubmed: 29741391
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Dec;26(12):2193-2199
pubmed: 28943071