Contact Mechanics of Elliptical and Spherical Head Implants during Axial Rotation in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Comparison.
contact mechanics
elliptical
humeral head
implant design
spherical
total shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jul 2023
26 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
05
07
2023
revised:
24
07
2023
accepted:
25
07
2023
medline:
12
8
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
12
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Elliptical humeral head implants have been proposed to result in more anatomic kinematics following total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The purpose of this study was to compare glenohumeral contact mechanics during axial rotation using spherical and elliptical humeral head implants in the setting of aTSA. Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were utilized for biomechanical testing in neutral (NR), internal (IR), and external (ER) rotation at various levels of abduction (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°) with lines of pull along each of the rotator cuff muscles. Each specimen underwent the following three conditions: (1) native, and TSA using (2) an elliptical and (3) spherical humeral head implant. Glenohumeral contact mechanics, including contact pressure (CP; kPa), peak contact pressure (PCP; kPa), and contact area (CA; mm Elliptical head implants showed a significantly lower PCP in ER compared to spherical implants at 0° (Δ-712.0 kPa; In the setting of aTSA, elliptical heads showed significantly lower PCP during ER at 0° to 45° of abduction, when compared to spherical head implants. However, in NR and IR, PCP was similar between implant designs. Both designs showed similar CA during NR, ER, and IR at all abduction angles. basic science; controlled laboratory study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Elliptical humeral head implants have been proposed to result in more anatomic kinematics following total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The purpose of this study was to compare glenohumeral contact mechanics during axial rotation using spherical and elliptical humeral head implants in the setting of aTSA.
METHODS
METHODS
Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were utilized for biomechanical testing in neutral (NR), internal (IR), and external (ER) rotation at various levels of abduction (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°) with lines of pull along each of the rotator cuff muscles. Each specimen underwent the following three conditions: (1) native, and TSA using (2) an elliptical and (3) spherical humeral head implant. Glenohumeral contact mechanics, including contact pressure (CP; kPa), peak contact pressure (PCP; kPa), and contact area (CA; mm
RESULTS
RESULTS
Elliptical head implants showed a significantly lower PCP in ER compared to spherical implants at 0° (Δ-712.0 kPa;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In the setting of aTSA, elliptical heads showed significantly lower PCP during ER at 0° to 45° of abduction, when compared to spherical head implants. However, in NR and IR, PCP was similar between implant designs. Both designs showed similar CA during NR, ER, and IR at all abduction angles.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
basic science; controlled laboratory study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37568320
pii: jcm12154918
doi: 10.3390/jcm12154918
pmc: PMC10420122
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Dec;27(12):3952-3961
pubmed: 31254026
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Mar;22(3):365-74
pubmed: 22608927
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Mar 7;24(1):171
pubmed: 36882825
Am J Sports Med. 2019 May;47(6):1441-1450
pubmed: 30964697
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S90-5
pubmed: 17169588
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6S):S50-S57
pubmed: 29776472
J Orthop Res. 1996 Nov;14(6):986-93
pubmed: 8982143
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Sep;(330):13-30
pubmed: 8804270
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 May-Jun;14(3):318-23
pubmed: 15889033
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1423-32
pubmed: 23510747
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):73-84
pubmed: 11182740
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Sep;25(9):1532-41
pubmed: 27068383
JSES Int. 2021 May 23;5(5):889-893
pubmed: 34505101
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Feb;32(2):318-325
pubmed: 36049701
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Apr;74(4):491-500
pubmed: 1583043
J Biomech. 1991;24(7):615-29
pubmed: 1880145
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Dec;26(12):2193-2199
pubmed: 28943071
J Orthop Res. 2016 Apr;34(4):666-74
pubmed: 26356804
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):1947-56
pubmed: 16140808
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1422-9
pubmed: 25794869
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1609-1615
pubmed: 28410956
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Feb;32(2):232-239
pubmed: 36007865
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
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Feb;24(2):513-20
pubmed: 26658562
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1463-72
pubmed: 25870114
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Oct;45(12):2849-2857
pubmed: 28771373
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 May-Jun;12(3):242-6
pubmed: 12851576
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
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:829171
pubmed: 24369018
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1084-93
pubmed: 26895598
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Dec;(285):181-90
pubmed: 1446435
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Jan;143(1):177-187
pubmed: 34216260
Arthroscopy. 2022 May;38(5):1422-1432
pubmed: 34801659
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Jan;142(1):67-76
pubmed: 32865631
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;32(5):1278-85
pubmed: 15262654