Literature DB >> 20625897

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

Ulrich Irlenbusch1, Steffen End, Mustafa Kilic.   

Abstract

Reconstruction of the anatomy of the proximal humerus is a prerequisite to achieving good long-term clinical results after shoulder arthroplasty. Modern, adjustable prostheses have greater flexibility of inclination, retroversion, and medial and dorsal offset in comparison with older prostheses. Such improvements should allow for better reconstruction of the centre of rotation compared to older prostheses. Reconstruction of the humeral head centre was assessed in 106 modern adjustable (Affinis) and 47 second-generation prostheses. All reconstructions were compared both to the preoperative state and the unoperated shoulder. To describe the pre- and postoperative states, the geometry and position of the humeral head in relation to the glenoid were analysed on patient radiographs. Applying the defined parameters, modern adjustable prostheses showed better reconstruction than second generation prostheses. Parameter values measured in reconstructions using fourth generation prostheses were comparable to those of the unoperated shoulder, but differed significantly from the preoperative state. Second generation prostheses, in contrast, only show non-specific differences in parameter values. This suggests that an approximate reconstruction of normal anatomy can be achieved using a modern fourth generation prosthesis. Reconstruction of the complex anatomy of the proximal humerus is significantly better with modern adjustable prostheses compared to second generation prostheses. Improved clinical outcome can therefore be predicted in a functional and intact rotator cuff. The advantage of using modern prostheses systems over older models is clearly demonstrated in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20625897      PMCID: PMC3080495          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-1084-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  20 in total

1.  Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement.

Authors:  M L Pearl; S Kurutz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Benefits of an anatomical reconstruction of the humeral head during shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  P Büchler; A Farron
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design.

Authors:  Ralph Hertel; Ulf Knothe; Franz T Ballmer
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study.

Authors:  Richard W Nyffeler; Ralph Sheikh; Hilaire A C Jacob; Christian Gerber
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  The geometry of the humeral head and the design of prostheses.

Authors:  S N Roberts; A P Foley; H M Swallow; W A Wallace; D P Coughlan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-07

6.  The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement.

Authors:  G R Williams; K L Wong; M D Pepe; V Tan; D Silverberg; M L Ramsey; A Karduna; J P Iannotti
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships.

Authors:  E J McPherson; R J Friedman; Y H An; R Chokesi; R L Dooley
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Prosthetic adaptability: a new concept for shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  G Walch; P Boileau
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty. A study in cadavera.

Authors:  D T Harryman; J A Sidles; S L Harris; S B Lippitt; F A Matsen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Joseph P Iannotti; Tom R Norris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  4 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.  Prospective study of double-eccentric hemi shoulder arthroplasty in different aetiologies: midterm results.

Authors:  Ulrich Irlenbusch; Georges Blatter; Katja Gebhardt; Geza Pap; Peter Zenz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  Is global humeral head offset related to intramedullary canal width? A computer tomography morphometric study.

Authors:  Johannes Barth; Jérôme Garret; Achilleas Boutsiadis; Etienne Sautier; Laurent Geais; Hugo Bothorel; Arnaud Godenèche
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2018-09-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.