stemless shoulder prosthesis
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

12
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (7) ◽  
pp. 1292-1300
Author(s):  
Nicole Märtens ◽  
Maximilian Heinze ◽  
Friedemann Awiszus ◽  
Jessica Bertrand ◽  
Christoph H. Lohmann ◽  
...  

Aims The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results, long-term survival, and complication rates of stemless shoulder prosthesis with stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses for treatment of osteoarthritis and to analyze radiological bone changes around the implants during follow-up. Methods A total of 161 patients treated with either a stemmed or a stemless shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 118 months (102 to 158). The Constant score (CS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and active range of motion (ROM) were recorded. Radiological analysis for bone adaptations was performed by plain radiographs. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was calculated and complications were noted. Results The ROM (p < 0.001), CS (p < 0.001), and DASH score (p < 0.001) showed significant improvements after shoulder arthroplasty for both implants. There were no differences between the groups treated with stemmed or stemless shoulder prosthesis with respect to the mean CS (79.2 (35 to 118) vs 74.4 (31 to 99); p = 0.519) and DASH scores (11.4 (8 to 29) vs 13.2 (7 to 23); p = 0.210). The ten-year unadjusted cumulative survival rate was 95.3% for the stemmed anatomical shoulder prosthesis and 91.5% for the stemless shoulder prosthesis and did not differ between the treatment groups (p = 0.251). The radiological evaluation of the humeral components in both groups did not show loosening of the humeral implant. The main reason for revision for each type of arthroplasties were complications related to the glenoid. Conclusion The use of anatomical stemless shoulder prosthesis yielded good and reliable results and did not differ from anatomical stemmed shoulder prosthesis over a mean period of ten years. The differences in periprosthetic humeral bone adaptations between both implants have no clinical impact during the follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1292–1300.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Moursy ◽  
Milan Niks ◽  
Aditya S. Kadavkolan ◽  
Lars J. Lehmann

Abstract Background The Eclipse® (Eclipse® is a trademark of Arthrex, Naples, Florida) stemless shoulder prosthesis offers the surgeon the advantage of bone stock preservation and at the same time avoids the drawbacks of a resurfacing arthroplasty. Previous studies have shown radiographic changes on serial follow up of the Eclipse prosthesis. This study attempts to assess the significance of these radiographic changes and effect of cuff related pathology on the mid-term outcome of the Eclipse prosthesis. Methods Between July 2005 and October 2008, 29 shoulders underwent shoulder arthroplasty with the Eclipse prosthesis; 23 shoulders, (seven women and 16 men) were available for the final follow up. The range of motion, Constant Score; age adjusted Constant Score, Subjective Shoulder Value and radiographs were assessed at serial follow-ups. Results Significant improvements were seen in the Constant Score (78.9 ±20.1) compared to pre-operative score (32.9 ±5.2); also forward elevation, abduction and external rotation improved to 142.9 ± 36.6 °, 135.2 ± 40.5 ° and 49.8 ± 21.9 ° at 72 months (p < 0.001). Radiolucent lines and localised osteopenia, did not statistically impact on the clinical outcome. Partial tears of the supraspinatus and subscapularis had a negative impact on the Subjective Shoulder Value (p < 0.05) Partial or complete tears of the subscapularis led to worse Constant Score on follow up (p < 0.05). Conclusions The presence of radiolucent lines or localised osteopenia does not influence the mid term clinical outcome. Pre -operative partial supraspinatus tears or tears of the subscapularis lead to an inferior outcome.


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Bülhoff ◽  
David Spranz ◽  
Michael Maier ◽  
Patric Raiss ◽  
Thomas Bruckner ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1609-1615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nael Hawi ◽  
Petra Magosch ◽  
Mark Tauber ◽  
Sven Lichtenberg ◽  
Peter Habermeyer

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. e96-e103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Berth ◽  
Vincent März ◽  
Heiko Wissel ◽  
Friedemann Awiszus ◽  
Holger Amthauer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document