Philippe Debeer1, Bart Berghs2, Nicole Pouliart3, Gert Van den Bogaert4, Filip Verhaegen5, Stefaan Nijs6. 1. Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, K.U. Leuven, Belgium & Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: philippe.debeer@uzleuven.be. 2. Orthopaedics, AZ Sint-Jan, Brugge, Belgium. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AZ Elisabeth Herentals, Herentals, Belgium. 5. Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, K.U. Leuven, Belgium & Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Traumatology, University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, K Katholieke Universiteit (K.U.), Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of glenoid bone deficiencies in primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty is challenging. This retrospective study evaluated the short-term clinical and radiologic results of a new custom-made patient-specific glenoid implant. METHODS: We treated 10 patients with severe glenoid deficiencies with the Glenius Glenoid Reconstruction System (Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium). Outcome data included a patient-derived Constant-Murley score, a visual analog score (VAS), a satisfaction score, the 11-item version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and the Simple Shoulder Test. We compared the postoperative position of the implant with the preoperative planned position on computed tomography scans. RESULTS: At an average follow-up period of 30.5 months, the mean patient-derived Constant-Murley score was 41.3 ± 17.5 points (range, 18-76 points) with a visual analog scale of 3.3 ± 2.5 points (range, 0-7 points). The mean 11-item version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 35.8 ± 18.4 (range, 2-71), and the mean Simple Shoulder Test was 47.5% ± 25.3% (range, 8%-92%). Eight patients reported the result as better (n = 3) or much better (n = 5). One patient had an elongation of the brachial plexus, and 1 patient had a period of instability. The average preoperative glenoid defect size was 9 ± 4 cm3 (range, 1-14 cm3). The mean deviation between the preoperative planned and the postoperative version and inclination was 6° ± 4° (range 1°-16°) and 4° ± 4° (range 0°-11°), respectively. CONCLUSION: Early results of the Glenius Glenoid Reconstruction System are encouraging. Adequate pain relief, a reasonable functionality, and good patient satisfaction can be obtained in these difficult cases. Further follow-up will determine the bony ingrowth and subsequent longevity of this patient-specific glenoid component.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of glenoid bone deficiencies in primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty is challenging. This retrospective study evaluated the short-term clinical and radiologic results of a new custom-made patient-specific glenoid implant. METHODS: We treated 10 patients with severe glenoid deficiencies with the Glenius Glenoid Reconstruction System (Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium). Outcome data included a patient-derived Constant-Murley score, a visual analog score (VAS), a satisfaction score, the 11-item version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and the Simple Shoulder Test. We compared the postoperative position of the implant with the preoperative planned position on computed tomography scans. RESULTS: At an average follow-up period of 30.5 months, the mean patient-derived Constant-Murley score was 41.3 ± 17.5 points (range, 18-76 points) with a visual analog scale of 3.3 ± 2.5 points (range, 0-7 points). The mean 11-item version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 35.8 ± 18.4 (range, 2-71), and the mean Simple Shoulder Test was 47.5% ± 25.3% (range, 8%-92%). Eight patients reported the result as better (n = 3) or much better (n = 5). One patient had an elongation of the brachial plexus, and 1 patient had a period of instability. The average preoperative glenoid defect size was 9 ± 4 cm3 (range, 1-14 cm3). The mean deviation between the preoperative planned and the postoperative version and inclination was 6° ± 4° (range 1°-16°) and 4° ± 4° (range 0°-11°), respectively. CONCLUSION: Early results of the Glenius Glenoid Reconstruction System are encouraging. Adequate pain relief, a reasonable functionality, and good patient satisfaction can be obtained in these difficult cases. Further follow-up will determine the bony ingrowth and subsequent longevity of this patient-specific glenoid component.