J Michael Wiater1, Jonathan C Levy2, Stephen A Wright3, Stephen F Brockmeier4, Thomas R Duquin5, Jonathan O Wright1, Timothy P Codd6. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan. 2. Holy Cross Orthopedic Research Institute, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 3. Orthopaedics Northeast, Parkview Orthopaedic Hospital, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jacobs School of Medicine, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland Medical System and St Joseph's Hospital, Towson, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stemless humeral components for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) have several reported potential benefits compared with stemmed implants. However, we are aware of no Level-I, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared stemless implants with stemmed implants in patients managed with aTSA. We sought to directly compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of stemless and stemmed implants to determine if the stemless implant is noninferior to the stemmed implant. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded RCT comparing stemless and short-stemmed implants in patients managed with aTSA. Range-of-motion measurements and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant scores were obtained at multiple time points. Device-related complications were recorded. Radiographic evaluation for evidence of loosening, fractures, dislocation, or other component complications was performed. Statistical analysis for noninferiority was performed at 2 years of follow-up for 3 primary end points: ASES score, absence of device-related complications, and radiographic signs of loosening. All other data were compared between cohorts at all time points as secondary measures. RESULTS:Two hundred and sixty-five shoulders (including 176 shoulders in male patients and 89 shoulders in female patients) were randomized and received the allocated treatment. The mean age of the patients (and standard deviation) was 62.6 ± 9.3 years, and 99% of the shoulders had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. At 2 years, the mean ASES score was 92.5 ± 14.9 for the stemless cohort and 92.2 ± 13.5 for the stemmed cohort (p value for noninferiority test, <0.0001), the proportion of shoulders without device-related complications was 92% (107 of 116) for the stemless cohort and 93% (114 of 123) for the stemmed cohort (p value for noninferiority test, 0.0063), and no shoulder in either cohort had radiographic signs of loosening. Range-of-motion measurements and ASES, SANE, and Constant scores did not differ significantly between cohorts at any time point within the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years of follow-up, the safety and effectiveness of the stemless humeral implant were noninferior to those of the stemmed humeral implant in patients managed with aTSA for the treatment of osteoarthritis. These short-term results are promising given the potential benefits of stemless designs over traditional, stemmed humeral components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Stemless humeral components for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) have several reported potential benefits compared with stemmed implants. However, we are aware of no Level-I, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared stemless implants with stemmed implants in patients managed with aTSA. We sought to directly compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of stemless and stemmed implants to determine if the stemless implant is noninferior to the stemmed implant. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded RCT comparing stemless and short-stemmed implants in patients managed with aTSA. Range-of-motion measurements and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant scores were obtained at multiple time points. Device-related complications were recorded. Radiographic evaluation for evidence of loosening, fractures, dislocation, or other component complications was performed. Statistical analysis for noninferiority was performed at 2 years of follow-up for 3 primary end points: ASES score, absence of device-related complications, and radiographic signs of loosening. All other data were compared between cohorts at all time points as secondary measures. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-five shoulders (including 176 shoulders in male patients and 89 shoulders in female patients) were randomized and received the allocated treatment. The mean age of the patients (and standard deviation) was 62.6 ± 9.3 years, and 99% of the shoulders had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. At 2 years, the mean ASES score was 92.5 ± 14.9 for the stemless cohort and 92.2 ± 13.5 for the stemmed cohort (p value for noninferiority test, <0.0001), the proportion of shoulders without device-related complications was 92% (107 of 116) for the stemless cohort and 93% (114 of 123) for the stemmed cohort (p value for noninferiority test, 0.0063), and no shoulder in either cohort had radiographic signs of loosening. Range-of-motion measurements and ASES, SANE, and Constant scores did not differ significantly between cohorts at any time point within the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years of follow-up, the safety and effectiveness of the stemless humeral implant were noninferior to those of the stemmed humeral implant in patients managed with aTSA for the treatment of osteoarthritis. These short-term results are promising given the potential benefits of stemless designs over traditional, stemmed humeral components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: David A Kolin; Michael A Moverman; Nicholas R Pagani; Richard N Puzzitiello; Jeremy Dubin; Mariano E Menendez; Andrew Jawa; Jacob M Kirsch Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Leonardo Cavinatto; Omar Khatib; Alexander Martusiewicz; Denise M Koueiter; Brett P Wiater; J Michael Wiater Journal: JSES Int Date: 2021-05-23
Authors: Konrad I Gruson; Yungtai Lo; Savino Stallone; Feras Qawasmi; Sung Lee; Priyam Shah Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2022-07-20
Authors: Kevin X Farley; Jacob M Wilson; Anjali Kumar; Michael B Gottschalk; Charles Daly; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Eric R Wagner Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2021-07-14