Scott P Stephens1, Edwin E Spencer2, Michael A Wirth3. 1. Fondren Orthopedic Group, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: Scott.stephens31@gmail.com. 2. Knoxville Orthopaedic Clinic, Knoxville, TN, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic osteoarthritis can result in glenohumeral subluxation and loss of posterior glenoid bone. This can alter normal glenohumeral biomechanics and affect the stress placed on the glenoid implant after total shoulder arthroplasty. This study evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of an augmented all-polyethylene glenoid for the treatment of glenoid osteoarthritis in the presence of posterior glenoid bone loss and determined whether any failures or complications occurred with short-term follow-up. METHODS: During a 2-year period, 21 patients were treated with an augmented glenoid for an index diagnosis of osteoarthritis with a biconcave glenoid and average posterior glenoid bone loss of 4.7 mm. Clinical outcomes were recorded for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment, Simple Shoulder Test, and active motion. Radiographic analysis included glenoid version, humeral head subluxation, component seating, ingrowth, and loosening. RESULTS: Significant improvements were demonstrated for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment (52.3), Simple Shoulder Test (8.1), forward flexion (50°), external rotation (32°), and pain. Radiographic improvements were found for glenoid version (12°), humeral scapular alignment (23%), and humeral glenoid alignment (8%). Central peg ingrowth was demonstrated in all patients, and complete component seating was achieved in 19 patients. No complications were encountered, and no clinical or radiographic failures were identified. CONCLUSION: Augmented polyethylene glenoid components demonstrated improved clinical outcome, without implant failure or complications, during short-term follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Chronic osteoarthritis can result in glenohumeral subluxation and loss of posterior glenoid bone. This can alter normal glenohumeral biomechanics and affect the stress placed on the glenoid implant after total shoulder arthroplasty. This study evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of an augmented all-polyethylene glenoid for the treatment of glenoid osteoarthritis in the presence of posterior glenoid bone loss and determined whether any failures or complications occurred with short-term follow-up. METHODS: During a 2-year period, 21 patients were treated with an augmented glenoid for an index diagnosis of osteoarthritis with a biconcave glenoid and average posterior glenoid bone loss of 4.7 mm. Clinical outcomes were recorded for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment, Simple Shoulder Test, and active motion. Radiographic analysis included glenoid version, humeral head subluxation, component seating, ingrowth, and loosening. RESULTS: Significant improvements were demonstrated for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment (52.3), Simple Shoulder Test (8.1), forward flexion (50°), external rotation (32°), and pain. Radiographic improvements were found for glenoid version (12°), humeral scapular alignment (23%), and humeral glenoid alignment (8%). Central peg ingrowth was demonstrated in all patients, and complete component seating was achieved in 19 patients. No complications were encountered, and no clinical or radiographic failures were identified. CONCLUSION: Augmented polyethylene glenoid components demonstrated improved clinical outcome, without implant failure or complications, during short-term follow-up.
Authors: Frederick A Matsen; Joseph P Iannotti; R Sean Churchill; Lieven De Wilde; T Bradley Edwards; Matthew C Evans; Edward V Fehringer; Gordon I Groh; James D Kelly; Christopher M Kilian; Giovanni Merolla; Tom R Norris; Giuseppe Porcellini; Edwin E Spencer; Anne Vidil; Michael A Wirth; Stacy M Russ; Moni Neradilek; Jeremy S Somerson Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Alexander W Aleem; Nathan D Orvets; Brendan C Patterson; Aaron M Chamberlain; Jay D Keener Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Benjamin C Service; Jason E Hsu; Jeremy S Somerson; Stacy M Russ; Frederick A Matsen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Travis J Dekker; W Jeffrey Grantham; Lucca Lacheta; Brandon T Goldenberg; Rony-Orijit Dey Hazra; Dylan R Rakowski; Grant J Dornan; Marilee P Horan; Peter J Millett Journal: JSES Int Date: 2022-03-18