| Literature DB >> 27117810 |
Tobias Peter Merkle1,2, Nicholas Beckmann3, Tom Bruckner4, Felix Zeifang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty is a proven treatment option for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Common indications include primary or posttraumatic osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis of the humeral head, rotator cuff tear arthropathy and rheumatoid osteoarthritis. Arthroplasty is rarely performed among patients with glenohumeral dysmelia. An overuse of the upper limb in patients with thalidomide-induced phocomelia and people with similar congenital deformities like dysmelia results in premature wear of the shoulder joint. This study aims to evaluate our experience with cases of glenohumeral osteoarthritis caused by dysmelia and treated with arthroplasty. To date, few reports on the outcome of shoulder arthroplasty exist on this particular patient group. CASEEntities:
Keywords: Arthroplasty; Glenohumeral dysmelia; Osteoarthritis; Phocomelia; Stemless shoulder prosthesis; Thalidomide
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27117810 PMCID: PMC4845506 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1031-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1a and b: Preoperative true AP and axial view of the left shoulder show the displacement of the joint and hypoplasia of the glenoid. X-rays reveal a small, irregularly shaped bone (Case 3). Poor ROM prevents optimal visualization of the bone stock and the glenoid surface
Fig. 2a and b: The cross-sectional pictures of the shoulder demonstrate the preoperative wear of all parts of the glenohumeral joint with a hypoplastic glenoid (Case 3). A large inferior socket defect can be seen. (a - coronal plane. b - axial plane)
Fig. 5a and b show total shoulder arthroplasty (Case 4) at follow-up (true AP and axial view of the left shoulder)
Fig. 3a and b: Postoperative pictures as an example for a patient (Case 3) without glenoid component of due to substantial bone stock defect (true AP and axial view of the left shoulder)
Individual preoperative findings
| Patient [No./side] | Age at time of arthroplasty [years] | ROM | VAS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion [°] | Abduction [°] | External rotation [°] | Internal rotation [region]a | |||
| 1 right | 47 | 30 | 30 | 0 | gluteal muscle | 8/10 |
| 1 left | 48 | 90 | 90 | 30 | sacrum | 7/10 |
| 2 left | 50 | 40 | 60 | −10 | lateral thigh | 6/10 |
| 3 left | 51 | 20 | 35 | −45 | lateral thigh | 8/10 |
| 4 left | 58 | 20 | 90 | 10 | lateral thigh | 8/10 |
aInternal rotation was graded according to the posterior spinal region that could be reached by the thumb
Individual postoperative findings
| Patient [No./side] | Follow-up [months] | ROM | VAS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion [°] | Abduction [°] | External rotation [°] | Internal rotation [region]a | |||
| 1 right | 60 | 140 | 120 | 55 | L2 | 0/10 |
| 1 left | 49 | 140 | 120 | 45 | L3 | 0/10 |
| 2 left | 32 | 160 | 130 | 10 | L5 | 0/10 |
| 3 left | 24 | 110 | 90 | 15 | gluteal muscle | 3/10 |
| 4 left | 91 | 170 | 170 | 25 | gluteal muscle | 1/10 |
aInternal rotation was graded according to the posterior spinal region that could be reached by the thumb
Preoperative and postoperative findings
| Preoperativea | Postoperativea |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant score (points) | 11.2 ± 5.3 (7 to 20) | 78.4 ± 13,8 (54 to 88) | .0006 |
| VAS (points) | 7.4 ± 0.9 (6 to 8) | 0.8 ± 1.3 (0 to 3) | .0002 |
| Flexion (deg) | 40.0 ± 29.2 (20 to 90) | 144.0 ± 23.0 (110 to 170) | .0033 |
| Abduction (deg) | 61.0 ± 28.8 (30 to 90) | 126.0 ± 28.8 (90 to 170) | .0034 |
| External rotation (deg) | −3.0 ± 27.7 (−45 to 30) | 30.0 ± 19.4 (10 to 55) | .0306 |
| Internal rotation (deg) | −53.0 ± 17.2 (−80 to −40) | −76.0 ± 8.9 (−80 to −60) | .0402 |
**Preoperative compared with postoperative. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05
aThe values are given as the mean and the standard deviation, with the range in parentheses
Fig. 4a and b: Clinical examination shows excellent ROM despite ankylosis of the elbow at follow-up (Case 4 - left shoulder)