B S Werner1, J Stehle2, A Abdelkawi3, P Plumhoff4, R Hudek3, F Gohlke3. 1. Klinik für Schulter- und Ellenbogenchirurgie, Rhön-Klinikum, Salzburger Leite 1, 97616, Bad Neustadt/Saale, Germany. birgit.werner@schulterchirurgie-bad-neustadt.de. 2. Orthopädisches Zentrum, Friedrichshafen, Germany. 3. Klinik für Schulter- und Ellenbogenchirurgie, Rhön-Klinikum, Salzburger Leite 1, 97616, Bad Neustadt/Saale, Germany. 4. Orthopädische Universitätsklinik König Ludwig Haus, Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cementless surface replacement of the shoulder represents an alternative to conventional stemmed anatomic prostheses. Glenoid erosion is a well-known complication in hemiarthroplasty. However, there is limited data concerning radiographic evaluation and prognostic factors for this phenomenon. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to determine the development of glenoid erosion following shoulder resurfacing using a new measurement technique and detect potential prognostic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 38 shoulders undergoing humeral head resurfacing with a mean follow-up of 65.4 ± 43 months. Clinical and radiographic evaluation followed a standardized protocol including pre- and postoperative Constant score, active range of motion, and X‑rays in true anteroposterior view. Three independent observers performed measurements of glenoid erosion. RESULTS: We found good interobserver reliability for glenoid erosion measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.74-0.78). Progressive glenoid erosion was present in all cases, averaging 5.5 ± 3.9 mm at more than 5 years' follow-up. Male patients demonstrated increased glenoid bone loss within the first 5 years (p < 0.04). The mean Constant score improved to 55.4 ± 23.6 points at the latest follow-up. Younger age was correlated to increased functional outcome. Revision rate due to painful glenoid erosion was 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid erosion can be routinely expected in patients undergoing humeral head resurfacing. Painful glenoid erosion leads to deterioration in functional outcome and necessitates revision surgery in a high percentage of cases.
BACKGROUND: Cementless surface replacement of the shoulder represents an alternative to conventional stemmed anatomic prostheses. Glenoid erosion is a well-known complication in hemiarthroplasty. However, there is limited data concerning radiographic evaluation and prognostic factors for this phenomenon. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to determine the development of glenoid erosion following shoulder resurfacing using a new measurement technique and detect potential prognostic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 38 shoulders undergoing humeral head resurfacing with a mean follow-up of 65.4 ± 43 months. Clinical and radiographic evaluation followed a standardized protocol including pre- and postoperative Constant score, active range of motion, and X‑rays in true anteroposterior view. Three independent observers performed measurements of glenoid erosion. RESULTS: We found good interobserver reliability for glenoid erosion measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.74-0.78). Progressive glenoid erosion was present in all cases, averaging 5.5 ± 3.9 mm at more than 5 years' follow-up. Male patients demonstrated increased glenoid bone loss within the first 5 years (p < 0.04). The mean Constant score improved to 55.4 ± 23.6 points at the latest follow-up. Younger age was correlated to increased functional outcome. Revision rate due to painful glenoid erosion was 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid erosion can be routinely expected in patients undergoing humeral head resurfacing. Painful glenoid erosion leads to deterioration in functional outcome and necessitates revision surgery in a high percentage of cases.
Authors: Damian M Rispoli; John W Sperling; George S Athwal; Cathy D Schleck; Robert H Cofield Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Bassem Elhassan; Mehmet Ozbaydar; David Diller; Lawrence D Higgins; Jon J P Warner Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Gregory P Nicholson; Jordan L Goldstein; Anthony A Romeo; Brian J Cole; Jennifer K Hayden; Stacy L Twigg; L Pearce McCarty; Alvin J Detterline Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Benjamin Kerzner; Nabil Mehta; Zeeshan A Khan; João A Bonadiman; Dhanur Damodar; Suhas P Dasari; Luc M Fortier; Nikhil N Verma Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2022-06-14