Early offset-increasing migration predicts later revision for humeral head resurfacing implants. A randomized controlled radiostereometry trial with 10-year clinical follow-up.
copeland
global C.A.P.
humeral head resurfacing implants
radiostereometry
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society
ISSN: 1554-527X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8404726
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
revised:
04
02
2022
received:
26
08
2021
accepted:
09
02
2022
pubmed:
28
2
2022
medline:
15
10
2022
entrez:
27
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In a randomized controlled setting, medium-term implant migration and long-term clinical outcomes were compared for the Copeland and the Global C.A.P. humeral head resurfacing implants (HHRI). Thirty-two patients (mean age 63 years) were randomly allocated to a Copeland (n = 14) or Global C.A.P. (n = 18) HHRI. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometry, Constant Shoulder Score, and the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS). WOOS and revision status were also obtained cross-sectionally at a mean 10-year follow-up. At the 5-year follow-up, total translation (TT) was 0.75 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.97) for the Copeland HHRIs and 1.15 mm (95% CI: 0.85-1.46) for the Global C.A.P. HHRIs (p = 0.04), but the clinical scores were similar at all follow-ups. The cumulative risks of revision at 5 and 10 years were 29% and 43% for Copeland and 35% and 41% for Global C.A.P HHRIs (p > 0.7). No implants were loose at revision, but HHRIs that were later revised followed an early offset-increasing migration pattern with medial translation and lift-off resulting in a mean 0.53 mm (95% CI: 0.18-0.88) higher TT at the 1-year follow-up compared to non-revised HHRIs. In conclusion, the Global C.A.P. HHRI had higher TT compared with the Copeland HHRI, but clinical scores and revision rates were similar. Nonetheless, revision rates were high and challenge the use of HHRIs. Interestingly, an early radiostereometry evaluated HHRI migration pattern with increased off-set predicted later implant revision.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2688-2697Informations de copyright
© 2022 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Sorensen AK, Olsen BS, Brorson S. Outcome, revision rate and indication for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: 837 operations reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Bone Joint J 96-B. 2014;96-B:519-525.
Streubel P, Simone J, Cofield R, Sperling J. Revision of failed humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2016;10:21-27.
Dekker AP, Joshi N, Morgan M, Espag M, A. Tambe A, Clark DI. 6-Year clinical results and survival of Copeland Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in a consecutive series of 279 cases. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020;11:S265-S269.
Hwang N, Modi CS, Drew SJ, Turner SM. Mid-term results of Copeland shoulder cementless surface replacement arthroplasty from an independent centre. Shoulder Elbow. 2014;6:75-80.
Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5- to 10-year results with the Copeland mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:213-221.
Rai P, Davies O, Wand J, Bigsby E. Long-term follow-up of the Copeland mark III shoulder resurfacing hemi-arthroplasty. J Orthop. 2016;13:52-56.
Verstraelen FU, Horta LA, Schotanus MGM, Kort NP, Samijo SK, Jansen EJP. Clinical and radiological results 7 years after Copeland shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: an independent multicentre retrospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:15-22.
Levy O, Tsvieli O, Merchant J, et al. Surface replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than fifty years: results after a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1049-1060.
Ingoe H, Holland P, Tindall E, Liow R, Mcvie JL, Rangan A. Seven-year survival analysis of the Global® CAP® (Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis) shoulder resurfacing. Shoulder Elbow. 2018;10:87-92.
Mechlenburg I, Amstrup A, Klebe T, Jacobsen SS, Teichert G, Stilling M. The Copeland resurfacing humeral head implant does not restore humeral head anatomy. A retrospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:615-619.
Ryd L, Albrektsson BE, Carlsson L, et al. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:377-383.
Kärrholm J, Borssén B, Löwenhielm G, Snorrason F. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:912-917.
Mechlenburg I, Klebe TM, Døssing KV, Amstrup A, Søballe K, Stilling M. Evaluation of periprosthetic bone mineral density and postoperative migration of humeral head resurfacing implants: two-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1427-1436.
Stilling M, Mechlenburg I, Amstrup A, Soballe K, Klebe T. Precision of novel radiological methods in relation to resurfacing humeral head implants: assessment by radiostereometric analysis, DXA, and geometrical analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:1521-1530.
Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A. The development of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:771-778.
Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:160-164.
Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA. Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:186-192.
Hammond G, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic humeral head resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty in functional glenohumeral positions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:68-76.
Geervliet PC, Willems JH, Sierevelt IN, Visser C, van Noort A. Overstuffing in resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a potential risk for failure. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14:474.
Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, et al. Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1740-1746.
Schmidutz F. Resurfacing of the humeral head: an analysis of the bone stock and osseous integration under the implant. J Orthop Res. 2015;33:1382-1390.
Tonino A, Oosterbos C, Rahmy A, Thèrin M, Doyle C. Hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components. Histological and histomorphometric analysis of six cups retrieved at autopsy between three and seven years after successful implantation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:817-825.
Geervliet PC, van den Bekerom MPJ, Spruyt P, Curvers M, van Noort A, Visser CPJ. Outcome and revision rate of uncemented glenohumeral resurfacing (C.A.P.) after 5-8 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137:771-778.
Al-Hadithy N, Domos P, Sewell MD, Naleem A, Papanna MC, Pandit R. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder for osteoarthritis: results of fifty Mark III Copeland prosthesis from an independent center with four-year mean follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:1776-1781.
Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:266-271.
Soudy K, Szymanski C, Lalanne C, et al. Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103:415-420.
Ödquist M, Hallberg K, Rahme H, Salomonsson B, Rosso A. Lower age increases the risk of revision for stemmed and resurfacing shoulder hemi arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2018;89:3-9.
Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Brorson S, Sørensen AK, Olsen BS. Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry, 2006-2010. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:117-122.
Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Al-Hamdani A, Brorson S. Outcome of revision shoulder arthroplasty after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1631-1637.
Sowa B, Bochenek M, Bülhoff M, et al. The medium- and long-term outcome of total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in middle-aged patients. Bone Joint J 99-B. 2017;99-B:939-943.
Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Lazarus MD, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Namdari S. Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1860-1867.
2013. ISO 16087:2013(en). Implants for surgery-Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis for the assessment of migration of orthopaedic implants. ISO Online Browsing Platform.
Valstar ER, Gill R, Ryd L, Flivik G, Börlin N, Kärrholm J. Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:563-572.