Literature DB >> 32328719

Prospective midterm results of a new convertible glenoid component in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort study.

Petra Magosch1,2,3, Sven Lichtenberg4, Mark Tauber5,6, Frank Martetschläger5,7, Peter Habermeyer5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of a new anatomic convertible cementless glenoid component.
METHODS: Forty-eight patients with a mean age of 67.3 years were clinically and radiologically followed-up with a mean of 49 months. Indications for glenoid replacement were A2 glenoid wear in 21.7%, B1 glenoid wear in 28.3%, B2 glenoid wear in 28.3%, B3 glenoid wear in 13%, D glenoid wear in 2.2%, and glenoid component loosening in 6.5%.
RESULTS: The Constant-Murley score improved significantly (p < 0.0001) from 50% pre-OP to 103% post-OP. Patients with a B3 glenoid type according to Walch achieved a significant (p = 0.044) lower Constant-Murley Sscore post-OP compared to patients with a B1 glenoid type (88% vs 106%). The mean subluxation index changed significantly (p < 0.0001) from 0.54 pre-OP to 0.46 post-OP. At the metal-back bone interface an incomplete radiolucent line < 1 mm was observed in two cases (4.2%) and an incomplete radiolucent line < 2 mm was observed in another two cases (4.2%). PE dissociation occurred in two cases. No glenoid loosening was observed. The implant related revision rate was 4.2% (2 cases). All components (n = 612.5%) requiring conversion to reverse were converted without any further complications or loosening.
CONCLUSION: Good functional results can be achieved in cases with a B1 and a B2 glenoid after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty using the described metal back glenoid. A conversion from an anatomic to a reverse glenoid component were possible in all cases without any further complications. Conversion of the anatomic glenoid component to a reverse system alleviates revision surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cementless glenoid; Convertible glenoid; Midterm results; Shoulder arthroplasty

Year:  2020        PMID: 32328719     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03454-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  24 in total

1.  Cemented polyethylene versus uncemented metal-backed glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study.

Authors:  Pascal Boileau; Cyril Avidor; Sumant G Krishnan; Gilles Walch; Jean-François Kempf; Daniel Molé
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Uncemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship and outcomes.

Authors:  Scott David Martin; David Zurakowski; Thomas S Thornhill
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging is comparable to computed tomography for determination of glenoid version but does not accurately distinguish between Walch B2 and C classifications.

Authors:  Jeremiah T Lowe; Edward J Testa; Xinning Li; Suzanne Miller; Joseph P DeAngelis; Andrew Jawa
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Results of cemented total shoulder replacement with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Authors:  Patric Raiss; Markus Schmitt; Thomas Bruckner; Philip Kasten; Guido Pape; Markus Loew; Felix Zeifang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Radiographic survival in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tyler J Fox; Antonio M Foruria; Brian J Klika; John W Sperling; Cathy D Schleck; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Secondary rotator cuff dysfunction following total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up.

Authors:  Allan A Young; Gilles Walch; Guido Pape; Frank Gohlke; Luc Favard
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tyler J Fox; Akin Cil; John W Sperling; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Cathy D Schleck; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Metal-backed glenoid implant with polyethylene insert is not a viable long-term therapeutic option.

Authors:  Pascal Boileau; Grégory Moineau; Nicolas Morin-Salvo; Cyrille Avidor; Arnaud Godenèche; Christophe Lévigne; Mohamed Baba; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Midterm results of a total shoulder prosthesis fixed with a cementless glenoid component.

Authors:  Fredy Montoya; Petra Magosch; Bastian Scheiderer; Sven Lichtenberg; Patricio Melean; Peter Habermeyer
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 10.  Rotator cuff tears after total shoulder arthroplasty in primary osteoarthritis: A systematic review.

Authors:  David M Levy; Geoffrey D Abrams; Joshua D Harris; Bernard R Bach; Gregory P Nicholson; Anthony A Romeo
Journal:  Int J Shoulder Surg       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun
View more
  3 in total

1.  Is there a correlation between humeral osteoarthritis and glenoid morphology according to Walch?

Authors:  Philipp Vetter; Petra Magosch; Peter Habermeyer
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-06

Review 2.  Innovations in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nels Leafblad; Elise Asghar; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Radiologic midterm results of cemented and uncemented glenoid components in primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Petra Magosch; Peter Habermeyer; Philipp Vetter
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.067

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.