Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 745-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Bonnevialle ◽  
Barbara Melis ◽  
Lionel Neyton ◽  
Luc Favard ◽  
Daniel Molé ◽  
...  
1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 237-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude T. Moorman ◽  
Russell F. Warren ◽  
David M. Dines ◽  
Bruce H. Moeckel ◽  
David W. Altchek

10.5772/53438 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nahum Rosenberg ◽  
Maruan Haddad ◽  
Doron Norm

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Melis ◽  
Nicolas Bonnevialle ◽  
Lionel Neyton ◽  
Christophe Lévigne ◽  
Luc Favard ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyojune Kim ◽  
Chul-Ho Kim ◽  
Minsoo Kim ◽  
Wonsun Lee ◽  
In-Ho Jeon ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of anatomical shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact cuff tissue. Materials and methods The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies published before March 2, 2021 using the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they directly compared aTSA and rTSA for treating primary glenohumeral arthritis. A meta-analysis was performed using six studies that compared radiologic outcomes, functional scores, and range of motion (ROM). All the data were pooled using a random-effects model. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as dichotomous data, while continuous data were analyzed using mean differences with 95% CIs. Results Two independent researchers reviewed 1,061 studies. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The range of motion, especially external rotation, was better for aTSA than for rTSA (MD = − 10.28, 95% CI: − 16.69 to − 3.88, P = 0.002). Functional scores showed no difference between aTSA and rTSA. Glenoid loosening (OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06–0.50, P = 0.001) was more common with aTSA, and scapula notching (OR = 10.63, 95% CI: 1.73–65.27, P = 0.01) with rTSA. In the mid-term follow-up, the overall revision rate showed no difference between aTSA and rTSA, with a pooled OR of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.07–1.57, P = 0.16). Conclusion A better ROM was achieved after aTSA than after rTSA. There was no difference in the revision rate at mid-term follow-up between aTSA and rTSA. Glenoid loosening was more common with aTSA, and scapula notching with rTSA. Level of evidence: Level IV, Meta-analysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (4) ◽  
pp. 485-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. O. Gauci ◽  
N. Bonnevialle ◽  
G. Moineau ◽  
M. Baba ◽  
G. Walch ◽  
...  

Aims Controversy about the use of an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in young arthritic patients relates to which is the ideal form of fixation for the glenoid component: cemented or cementless. This study aimed to evaluate implant survival of aTSA when used in patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), and to compare the survival of cemented all-polyethylene and cementless metal-backed glenoid components. Materials and Methods A total of 69 consecutive aTSAs were performed in 67 patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral OA. Their mean age at the time of surgery was 54 years (35 to 60). Of these aTSAs, 46 were undertaken using a cemented polyethylene component and 23 were undertaken using a cementless metal-backed component. The age, gender, preoperative function, mobility, premorbid glenoid erosion, and length of follow-up were comparable in the two groups. The patients were reviewed clinically and radiographically at a mean of 10.3 years (5 to 12, sd 26) postoperatively. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision as the endpoint. Results A total of 26 shoulders (38%) underwent revision surgery: ten (22%) in the polyethylene group and 16 (70%) in the metal-backed group (p < 0.0001). At 12 years’ follow-up, the rate of implant survival was 74% (sd 0.09) for polyethylene components and 24% (sd 0.10) for metal-backed components (p < 0.0002). Glenoid loosening or failure was the indication for revision in the polyethylene group, whereas polyethylene wear with metal-on-metal contact, instability, and insufficiency of the rotator cuff were the indications for revision in the metal-backed group. Preoperative posterior subluxation of the humeral head with a biconcave/retroverted glenoid (Walch B2) had an adverse effect on the survival of a metal-backed component. Conclusion The survival of a cemented polyethylene glenoid component is three times higher than that of a cementless metal-backed glenoid component ten years after aTSA in patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral OA. Patients with a biconcave (B2) glenoid have the highest risk of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:485–92.


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley S. Raphael ◽  
Joshua S. Dines ◽  
Russell F. Warren ◽  
Mark Figgie ◽  
Edward V. Craig ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Charlie Yongpravat ◽  
Jonathan D. Lester ◽  
Alen Trubelja ◽  
R. Michael Greiwe ◽  
Comron Saifi ◽  
...  

The use of three-dimensional (3D) computer simulations for pre-operative planning of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has greatly increased in the past decade [1,2]. These studies have primarily focused on optimizing glenoid resurfacing to elucidate the factors involved in glenoid loosening, the most common cause of TSA failure [3,4]. While finite element analyses have investigated the effects of glenoid resurfacing parameters such as implant placement and depth of reaming on the stresses associated with the glenoid/cement/implant construct, none have determined if their method for simulating glenoid surface preparation is physically representative or accurate. In TSA, the first step in glenoid resurfacing is reaming the glenoid surface in preparation for the placement of the glenoid implant. The purpose of this study was to validate the volume removed as determined by computer simulated reaming against the volume removed by ream of cadaveric scapulae.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document