Literature DB >> 28395945

Radiographic changes and clinical outcomes associated with an adjustable diaphyseal press-fit humeral stem in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Samuel M Harmsen1, Tom R Norris2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Press-fit humeral fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become increasingly popular; however, radiographic analysis of these stems is limited. We aimed to evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of an adjustable diaphyseal press-fit humeral stem in primary RSA.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 232 primary RSAs in 219 patients performed by a single surgeon using this system. Radiographic outcomes were evaluated in patients with at least 2 years of radiographic follow-up. Standardized postoperative digital radiographs were analyzed for loosening, osteolysis, and stress shielding. Clinical outcomes in patients who also had complete clinical data sets were evaluated at the most recent follow-up.
RESULTS: Radiographic evidence of loosening was identified in 1 RSA (0.4%) associated with deep infection. Aseptic loosening was not observed. No stems were identified as being at high risk for loosening. Internal stress shielding was observed proximal to the coated diaphyseal component in 226 shoulders (97.4%). This finding was often visible at 3 months (92.7%) and predictably progressed on subsequent radiographs. Progression beyond the 2-year period was rarely seen (4.4%). No external stress shielding or osteolysis was observed. Thirty-six complications occurred in 33 patients (15.1%). At an average follow-up of 36.6 months, significant improvements were identified in all measured clinical outcomes (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Predictable fixation is achieved using an adjustable diaphyseal press-fit humeral system in primary RSA. Internal stress shielding is commonly observed but does not appear to compromise quality of fixation or clinical outcomes.
Copyright © 2017 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; adjustable reverse; humeral loosening; press-fit; radiographic analysis; stress shielding

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28395945     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.02.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  10 in total

1.  Value comparison of humeral component press-fit and cemented techniques in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Derek D Berglund; Dragomir Mijic; Tsun Yee Law; Jennifer Kurowicki; Samuel Rosas; Jonathan C Levy
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly. Cemented or uncemented stem?

Authors:  Yaiza Lopiz; Carlos García-Fernandez; María Vallejo-Carrasco; Daniel Garriguez-Pérez; Loreto Achaerandio; Carmen Tesoro-Gonzalo; Fernando Marco
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-01-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Humeral stem with low filling ratio reduces stress shielding in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Su Cheol Kim; Jong Hun Park; Hashem Bukhary; Jae Chul Yoo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 3.479

4.  Delta Xtend reverse shoulder arthroplasty - Results at a minimum of five years.

Authors:  Craig M Ball
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2019-03-06

Review 5.  The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I.

Authors:  Sarav S Shah; Benjamin T Gaal; Alexander M Roche; Surena Namdari; Brian M Grawe; Macy Lawler; Stewart Dalton; Joseph J King; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-09-07

Review 6.  The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part II.

Authors:  Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Spencer W Sullivan; Benjamin T Gaal; Stewart Dalton; Arjun Sharma; Joseph J King; Brian M Grawe; Surena Namdari; Macy Lawler; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-09-10

Review 7.  Radiological changes, infections and neurological complications after reverse shoulder arthroplasty related to different design types and their rates: Part II.

Authors:  Marko Nabergoj; Patrick J Denard; Philippe Collin; Rihard Trebše; Alexandre Lädermann
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-11-19

8.  Humeral-sided Radiographic Changes Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tyler J Brolin; Ryan M Cox; John G Horneff Iii; Surena Namdari; Joseph A Abboud; Kristen Nicholson; Matthew L Ramsey
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2020-01

9.  Humeral bone resorption after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using uncemented stem.

Authors:  Kazuya Inoue; Naoki Suenaga; Naomi Oizumi; Hiroshi Yamaguchi; Naoki Miyoshi; Noboru Taniguchi; Shuzo Morita; Mitsuru Munemoto; Shimpei Kurata; Yasuhito Tanaka
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-01-14

Review 10.  Does Humeral Component Version Affect Range of Motion and Clinical Outcomes in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Shivan S Jassim; Lukas Ernstbrunner; Eugene T Ek
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.