Literature DB >> 12195253

Cemented polyethylene versus uncemented metal-backed glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study.

Pascal Boileau1, Cyril Avidor, Sumant G Krishnan, Gilles Walch, Jean-François Kempf, Daniel Molé.   

Abstract

Thirty-nine patients (forty shoulders) with primary osteoarthritis consented to be randomized to receive either a cemented all-polyethylene glenoid component or a cementless metal-backed component at the time of total shoulder arthroplasty. Their mean age was 69 years. Preoperative and postoperative evaluations were completed at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months by history, physical examination, radiographs, and Constant scoring system. The presence of periprosthetic radiolucent lines was significantly greater with polyethylene than with metal-backed glenoids (85% vs 25%, P <.01). Of 20 radiolucent lines, 12 (60%) around polyethylene glenoids were present on immediate postoperative radiographs and 25% were progressive. No significant correlation was found between the presence of radiolucent lines around polyethylene glenoids and functional results (P =.3). By contrast, periprosthetic radiolucent lines around metal-backed glenoids were rare but progressive when present. The incidence of loosening of metal-backed implants (4 cases, 20%) was significantly higher than that observed with polyethylene glenoids (0%, P <.001) and was associated with component shift and severe osteolysis. Metal-backed glenoid loosening significantly correlated with deteriorating functional results and increasing pain (P <.05). Revision surgery was required for 4 patients in the metal-backed group (P =.02), for a subscapularis tear (1 case) and metal-backed glenoid component loosening (3 cases). Computed tomography scan analysis and revision surgery revealed that preoperative posterior humeral subluxation may recur with time despite glenoid reorientation and may cause asymmetric accelerated polyethylene wear, resulting in metal-on-metal contact and severe osteolysis. Reimplantation of a stable cemented glenoid component was possible in 1 case, whereas the cavitary defect was packed with cancellous bone in the 2 other cases. At a minimum of 3 years' follow-up, the results of this study clearly show that (1) the survival rate of cementless, metal-backed glenoid components is inferior to cemented all-polyethylene components and (2) the incidence of radiolucency at the glenoid-cement interface with all-polyethylene components is high and remains a concern. The high rate of loosening, because of the absence of ingrowth and/or the accelerated polyethylene wear, has led us to abandon the use of metal-backed glenoids. Efforts must continue to improve glenoid component design and fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12195253     DOI: 10.1067/mse.2002.125807

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  52 in total

1.  Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: an update on indications, technique, results and complication rates.

Authors:  Lorenzo Mattei; Stefano Mortera; Chiara Arrigoni; Filippo Castoldi
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2015-11-03

2.  Platform systems in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian C Werner; Joshua S Dines; David M Dines
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

3.  Prospective midterm results of a new convertible glenoid component in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort study.

Authors:  Petra Magosch; Sven Lichtenberg; Mark Tauber; Frank Martetschläger; Peter Habermeyer
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 4.  Journey of the glenoid in anatomic total shoulder replacement.

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

5.  Assessment of radiolucent lines in cemented shoulder hemi-arthroplasties: study of concordance and reproducibility.

Authors:  Carlos Torrens; Santos Martínez-Díaz; Aina Ruiz; Alberto Gines; Enrique Cáceres
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Axillary view: arthritic glenohumeral anatomy and changes after ream and run.

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Akash Gupta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  "Shaped" humeral head autograft reverse shoulder arthroplasty : Treatment for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with significant posterior glenoid bone loss (B2, B3, and C type).

Authors:  S Harmsen; D Casagrande; T Norris
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis: all-polyethylene versus metal-backed glenoid.

Authors:  M O Gauci; N Bonnevialle; G Moineau; M Baba; G Walch; P Boileau
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 5.082

9.  Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad?

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Winston J Warme; Sarah E Jackins
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Pain and function in eight hundred and fifty nine patients comparing shoulder hemiprostheses, resurfacing prostheses, reversed total and conventional total prostheses.

Authors:  Bjørg-Tilde S Fevang; Stein H L Lygre; Glenn Bertelsen; Arne Skredderstuen; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.