Madeleine A Salesky1, Trevor R Grace1, Brian T Feeley1, C Benjamin Ma1, Alan L Zhang2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Alan.Zhang@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influence of primary humeral stem fixation method (cemented or press fit) on intraoperative or postoperative outcomes in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of revision shoulder arthroplasty patients from a single tertiary center was performed. Demographic variables, intraoperative data, and 90-day complication rates were compared between cemented and press-fit primary stem fixation cohorts. Follow-up radiographs were graded and compared using a modified Gruen system for humeral lucencies. RESULTS: Eighty-six primary shoulder replacements (34 hemiarthroplasties, 39 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties, 13 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties) underwent revision arthroplasty with humeral stem removal between 2004 and 2017. Forty-five patients had cemented primary humeral fixation and 41 had press-fit fixation. The cemented cohort was older than the cementless cohort (66.6 vs. 61.4 years; P = .03) but otherwise demonstrated no difference in gender, body mass index, type of primary prosthesis (hemi, total, or reverse), or time between primary and revision operations. The cemented and cementless cohorts showed similar rates of humeral osteotomy (28.9% vs. 29.3%; P = .97), operative time (133.5 vs. 121.3 minutes; P = .16), and 90-day complication rates (13.3% vs. 9.8%; P = .61). Cemented vs. press-fit primary stems also had similar rates of humeral lucencies seen on follow-up radiographs after revision (77.1% vs. 60.6%; P = .14). CONCLUSION: Humeral stem fixation with or without cement during primary shoulder arthroplasty demonstrated similar operative time, need for intraoperative humeral osteotomy, and postoperative complication rates in the setting of revision arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND: The influence of primary humeral stem fixation method (cemented or press fit) on intraoperative or postoperative outcomes in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of revision shoulder arthroplasty patients from a single tertiary center was performed. Demographic variables, intraoperative data, and 90-day complication rates were compared between cemented and press-fit primary stem fixation cohorts. Follow-up radiographs were graded and compared using a modified Gruen system for humeral lucencies. RESULTS: Eighty-six primary shoulder replacements (34 hemiarthroplasties, 39 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties, 13 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties) underwent revision arthroplasty with humeral stem removal between 2004 and 2017. Forty-five patients had cemented primary humeral fixation and 41 had press-fit fixation. The cemented cohort was older than the cementless cohort (66.6 vs. 61.4 years; P = .03) but otherwise demonstrated no difference in gender, body mass index, type of primary prosthesis (hemi, total, or reverse), or time between primary and revision operations. The cemented and cementless cohorts showed similar rates of humeral osteotomy (28.9% vs. 29.3%; P = .97), operative time (133.5 vs. 121.3 minutes; P = .16), and 90-day complication rates (13.3% vs. 9.8%; P = .61). Cemented vs. press-fit primary stems also had similar rates of humeral lucencies seen on follow-up radiographs after revision (77.1% vs. 60.6%; P = .14). CONCLUSION: Humeral stem fixation with or without cement during primary shoulder arthroplasty demonstrated similar operative time, need for intraoperative humeral osteotomy, and postoperative complication rates in the setting of revision arthroplasty.
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