Literature DB >> 23412244

How to deal with glenoid type B2 or C? How to prevent mistakes in implantation of glenoid component?

Jean Kany1, Denis Katz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although TSA has been shown to significantly yield better outcomes than hemiarthroplasty, glenoid prosthesis loosening remains the most common complication. Inadequate primary fixation enables the glenoid component to move. In primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA), glenoid involvement and proper morphology vary considerably. Postero-inferior glenoid hypoplasia could be associated with some degree of osteoarthritis. According to Walch, 24 % of glenoids in GHOA are type B2 or C (excessive posterior retroversion), which increases the challenge for the glenoid component fixation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 cases of TSR with glenoid type B2 (20 cases) and type C (10 cases) were reviewed. Mean follow-up was 11.2 months. A metal-backed (MB) glenoid component was implanted, with a posterior bone graft reconstruction. Pre- and post-operative clinical evaluation was done using the Constant-Murley score and the SST from Matsen.
RESULTS: There is no glenoid loosening, no joint narrowing and no radiolucent line. There was no bone graft osteolysis. With 4 patients revised (4 conversions from TSR to RSR for 3 instabilities and 1 secondary rotator cuff tear), on the overall 30 patients cohort, Constant score pain increased from 1.6 to 13.4, forward flexion from 92° to 146° and Constant score from 27 (36 %) to 70 (95 %). The statistical difference between pre- and post-operative values is greatly significant.
CONCLUSION: Although MB prostheses have been noted to have a higher rate of loosening than full-cemented PE, this is not our experience, even in case of glenoid type B2 or C, where the technical challenge is demanding and most of the time a posterior bone graft is necessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23412244     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-012-1118-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  28 in total

1.  The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version.

Authors:  R J Friedman; K B Hawthorne; B M Genez
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study.

Authors:  Richard W Nyffeler; Ralph Sheikh; Todd S Atkinson; Hilaire A C Jacob; Philippe Favre; Christian Gerber
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Evaluation of the glenoid implant survival using a biomechanical finite element analysis: influence of the implant design, bone properties, and loading location.

Authors:  P Mansat; J Briot; M Mansat; P Swider
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Trends in the epidemiology of total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States from 1990-2000.

Authors:  Nitin B Jain; Laurence D Higgins; Ulrich Guller; Ricardo Pietrobon; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-08-15

5.  Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid.

Authors:  J M Hill; T R Norris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  C S Neer; D S Morrison
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study.

Authors:  R S Churchill; J J Brems; H Kotschi
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Authors:  G Walch; R Badet; A Boulahia; A Khoury
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 9.  Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Craig S Radnay; Kevin J Setter; Locky Chambers; William N Levine; Louis U Bigliani; Christopher S Ahmad
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2007-06-20       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties.

Authors:  Amy K Franta; Tim R Lenters; Doug Mounce; Blazej Neradilek; Frederick A Matsen
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2007-05-16       Impact factor: 3.019

View more
  3 in total

1.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with type B2, B3, and type C glenoids: comparable clinical outcome to patients without compromised glenoid bone stock-a matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Rafael Loucas; Philipp Kriechling; Marios Loucas; Rany El Nashar; Christian Gerber; Karl Wieser
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Trends and impact of three-dimensional preoperative imaging for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jourdan M Cancienne; Ian J Dempsey; Grant E Garrigues; Brian J Cole; Stephen F Brockmeier; Brian C Werner
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-03-02

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.