Literature DB >> 16498009

Influence of the design of the prosthesis on the outcome after hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in displaced fractures of the head of the humerus.

M Loew1, S Heitkemper, D Parsch, S Schneider, M Rickert.   

Abstract

We reviewed 39 patients with displaced three- and four-part fractures of the humerus. In 21 patients (group A) we had used an anatomical prosthesis for the humeral head and in 18 (group B) an implant designed for fractures. When followed up at a mean of 29.3 months after surgery the overall Constant score was 51.9 points; in group A it was 51.5 and in group B 52.4 points. The subjective satisfaction of the patients was assessed using a numerical rating scale and was similar in both groups. In group A complete healing of the tuberosities was found in 29% and 50% in group B. Partial integration was seen in 29% of group A and in only one patient in group B, while resorption was noted in 43% of group A and 44% of group B. The functional outcome was significantly better in patients with complete or partial healing of the tuberosities (p=0.022). The specific trauma prosthesis did not lead to better healing of the tuberosities. The difference in clinical outcome obtained by the two designs did not reach statistical significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16498009     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B3.16909

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  18 in total

1.  [Biomechanical investigation on refixation of tuberosities on shoulder prostheses. Does refixation with different suture materials offer enough stability?].

Authors:  J Fleischer; A Schleyer; R Nassutt; H Grundei; U Grittner; S J Hopp
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 2.  Review of fixation techniques for the four-part fractured proximal humerus in hemiarthroplasty.

Authors:  Daniel Baumgartner; Betsy M Nolan; Robert Mathys; Silvio Rene Lorenzetti; Edgar Stüssi
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  [Innovations and prognoses].

Authors:  C Voigt; H Lill
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  [Strategies in revision shoulder arthroplasty].

Authors:  P Habermeyer; P Magosch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Wear and damage of articular cartilage with friction against orthopedic implant materials.

Authors:  Sevan R Oungoulian; Krista M Durney; Brian K Jones; Christopher S Ahmad; Clark T Hung; Gerard A Ateshian
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  [Prostheses for fractures of the proximal humerus: presentation of current results of anatomical fracture shoulder prosthesis under consideration of alternative concepts].

Authors:  G Pape; L Tonne; P Raiss; M Loew; F Zeifang
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Primary shoulder arthroplasty versus conservative treatment for comminuted proximal humeral fractures: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Dennis den Hartog; Jeroen de Haan; Niels W Schep; Wim E Tuinebreijer
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2010-02-17

8.  [Indication for primary fracture prosthesis of the shoulder].

Authors:  C Kirchhoff; P Biberthaler
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.000

9.  Refixation stability in shoulder hemiarthroplasty in case of four-part proximal humeral fracture.

Authors:  Daniel Baumgartner; Silvio René Lorenzetti; Robert Mathys; Beat Gasser; Edgar Stüssi
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Functional outcome after proximal humeral fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty.

Authors:  Salah Fallatah; Geoffrey F Dervin; Jacques A Brunet; Anna F Conway; Heather Hrushowy
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.089

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.