Literature DB >> 15726095

Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique.

Michael L Pearl1.   

Abstract

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the glenohumeral joint has been established for several decades as a means to restore comfort and function of the shoulder for many afflictions that derange the normal anatomy. Rigorous study of shoulder anatomy in terms relevant to prosthetic geometry, however, did not begin until the 1990s. It has become apparent that normal anatomy is highly variable from individual to individual and that it is aligned somewhat differently than the early modular prosthetic devices. Multiple studies have shown that retroversion is markedly variable, not only between individuals but also between the left and right sides of the same individual, ranging from 0 degrees to 55 degrees . The inclination of the proximal humeral articular surface relative to the shaft (head shaft angle) is also variable, ranging from 30 degrees to 55 degrees. The center of rotation is variably offset in 3 dimensions. The radius of curvature ranges from 20 to 30 mm and is smaller in women than in men. The thickness of the articular surface, head height, is equally variable but shows a striking proportionality to the radius of curvature. The last decade has seen a proliferation of humeral implants aiming to serve a better understanding of shoulder anatomy and function. A modern understanding of shoulder anatomy and contemporary design features is paramount for surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty. Head size selection is dependent on multiple factors, the most important of these, other than the patient's original head size, are the osteotomy performed by the surgeon and the inclination angle(s) of the prosthetic system. Systems with variable inclination angles instruct the surgeon to resect the humeral head along the anatomic neck as best possible and then provide either adjustable or variable prosthetic geometries to match the resultant inclination angle. Other prosthetic systems have a fixed inclination angle somewhere within the normal range and instruct the surgeon to make an osteotomy at this inclination, adjusting the fit with additional preparation of the canal and revising the osteotomy as necessary. Over the last decade, most systems have offered heads that are offset by 3 to 4 mm, allowing the surgeon to dial in the most suitable position for the head on the stem. Component design and surgical technique are inextricably intertwined. Most surgeons with experience using modern systems feel a greater sense of predictability in achieving their surgical goals when using these systems as compared with earlier ones. How these developments impact implant longevity will only be known with time and further follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15726095     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.025

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


  32 in total

1.  Variability of medial and posterior offset in patients with fourth-generation stemmed shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ulrich Irlenbusch; Alexander Berth; Georges Blatter; Peter Zenz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Differences in reconstruction of the anatomy with modern adjustable compared to second-generation shoulder prosthesis.

Authors:  Ulrich Irlenbusch; Steffen End; Mustafa Kilic
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses.

Authors:  Bakir Kadum; Hamid Hassany; Mats Wadsten; Arkan Sayed-Noor; Göran Sjödén
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  CT scan method accurately assesses humeral head retroversion.

Authors:  P Boileau; R T Bicknell; N Mazzoleni; G Walch; J P Urien
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  A 3D-CT scan study of the humeral and glenoid planes in 150 normal shoulders.

Authors:  Lieven De Wilde; Saartje Defoort; Tom R G M Verstraeten; Wendy Speeckaert; Philippe Debeer
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 1.246

7.  Midcarpal hemiarthroplasty for wrist arthritis: rationale and early results.

Authors:  Michael C Vance; Greg Packer; David Tan; J J Trey Crisco; Scott W Wolfe
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2012-08

8.  The Envelope of Physiological Motion of the First Carpometacarpal Joint.

Authors:  Joseph J Crisco; Tarpit Patel; Eni Halilaj; Douglas C Moore
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.097

9.  Clinical and radiographic mid-term outcomes after shoulder resurfacing in patients aged 50 years old or younger.

Authors:  G Merolla; P Bianchi; N Lollino; R Rossi; P Paladini; G Porcellini
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2013-04-16

10.  Efficacy of anatomical prostheses in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Giovanni Merolla; Paolo Paladini; Fabrizio Campi; Giuseppe Porcellini
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2008-03-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.