Literature DB >> 11222933

Loosening performance of cemented glenoid prosthesis design pairs.

C Anglin1, U P Wyss, R W Nyffeler, C Gerber.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study (n=3) was to compare the loosening performance of glenoid prosthesis design pairs where only one design variable differed.
DESIGN: Glenoids were subjected to dynamic edge loading in a biaxial test setup.
BACKGROUND: Glenoid component loosening is the primary concern in total shoulder arthroplasty.
METHODS: After the humeral head was cycled 100,000 times to the superior and inferior edges of the glenoid, the tensile edge displacements were measured under superior and inferior off-center loading. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, a rough-backed design had dramatically better loosening performance than a smooth-backed; curved-backed was superior to flat-backed; a less-constrained articular surface was better than a more-constrained articular surface; pegs outperformed a keel; threaded pegs were marginally preferable to cylindrical pegs; and an all-polyethylene design rocked slightly less than a metal-mesh-backed design. RELEVANCE: A comparison of the laboratory loosening behavior of glenoid prostheses may lead to improved designs, subsequently leading to a reduction in the incidence of clinical loosening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11222933     DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00078-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  14 in total

1.  Does an increase in modularity improve the outcomes of total shoulder replacement? Comparison across design generations.

Authors:  Bradley Schoch; Jean-David Werthel; Cathy Schleck; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  [Shoulder Arthroplasty. Surgical management].

Authors:  P Habermeyer; S Lichtenberg; P Magosch
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 3.  Journey of the glenoid in anatomic total shoulder replacement.

Authors:  Alessandro Castagna; Raffaele Garofalo
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2018-08-01

4.  Consequences of scapular anatomy for reversed total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bart Middernacht; Pieter-Jan De Roo; Georges Van Maele; Lieven F De Wilde
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Multi-patient finite element simulation of keeled versus pegged glenoid implant designs in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Werner Pomwenger; Karl Entacher; Herbert Resch; Peter Schuller-Götzburg
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 6.  Glenoid or not glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Kany Jean
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-11-30

7.  The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mark Schrumpf; Travis Maak; Sommer Hammoud; Edward V Craig
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-12

8.  [Differential indications for current endoprosthesis systems of the shoulder].

Authors:  E Wiedemann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Porous metals and alternate bearing surfaces in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Shannon R Carpenter; Ivan Urits; Anand M Murthi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

10.  Number of pegs influence focal stress distributions and micromotion in glenoid implants: a finite element study.

Authors:  Abdul Hadi Abdul Wahab; Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir; Muhammad Noor Harun; Tunku Kamarul; Ardiyansyah Syahrom
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 2.602

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.