Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-04-2016 | Original Paper

Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses

Authors: Bakir Kadum, Hamid Hassany, Mats Wadsten, Arkan Sayed-Noor, Göran Sjödén

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 4/2016

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of a stemless shoulder prosthesis to restore shoulder anatomy in relation to premorbid anatomy.

Methods

This prospective study was performed between May 2007 and December 2013. The inclusion criteria were patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) who had undergone stemless total anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Radiographic measurements were done on anteroposterior X-ray views of the glenohumeral joint.

Results

Sixty-nine patients (70 shoulders) were included in the study. The mean difference between premorbid centre of rotation (COR) and post-operative COR was 1 ± 2 mm (range −3 to 5.8 mm). The mean difference between premorbid humeral head height (HH) and post-operative HH was −1 ± 3 mm (range −9.7 to 8.5 mm). The mean difference between premorbid neck-shaft angle (NSA) and post-operative NSA was −3 ± 12° (range −26 to 20°).

Conclusions

Stemless implants could be of help to reconstruct the shoulder anatomy. This study shows that there are some challenges to be addressed when attempting to ensure optimal implant positioning. The critical step is to determine the correct level of bone cut to avoid varus or valgus humeral head inclination and ensure correct head size.

Walch G, Boileau P (1999) Prosthetic adaptability: a new concept for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(5):443–51CrossRefPubMed

Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K (2000) Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A(11):1594–602PubMed

Mileti J, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Harrington JR, Hoskin TL (2005) Monoblock and modular total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87(4):496–500. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.87b4.15558 CrossRef

Churchill RS (2014) Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current status. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(9):1409–14. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.005 CrossRefPubMed

Huguet D, DeClercq G, Rio B, Teissier J, Zipoli B, TESS Group (2010) Results of a new stemless shoulder prosthesis: radiologic proof of maintained fixation and stability after a minimum of three years' follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(6):847–52. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.009 CrossRefPubMed

Kadum B, Mafi N, Norberg S, Sayed-Noor AS (2011) Results of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS): a single-centre study of 56 consecutive patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(12):1623–9. doi:10.1007/s00402-011-1368-4 CrossRefPubMed

Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, Szerlip BW, Evans PJ, Nowinski RJ et al (2014) Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(11):1740–6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.013 CrossRefPubMed

Youderian AR, Ricchetti ET, Drews M, Iannotti JP (2014) Determination of humeral head size in anatomic shoulder replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(7):955–63. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.005 CrossRefPubMed

Mackenzie DB (1993) The antero-superior exposure for total shoulder replacement. Orthop Traumatol 2:690–700CrossRef

10.

Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Robertson DD, Yamaguchi K (2002) Geometric analysis of selected press fit prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Orthop Res 20(2):192–7. doi:10.1016/s0736-0266 (01) 00111-5 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Harryman DT, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA (1995) The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty. A study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(4):555–63PubMed

12.

Takase K, Imakiire A, Burkhead WZ Jr (2002) Radiographic study of the anatomic relationships of the greater tuberosity. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(6):557–61CrossRefPubMed

13.

Favre P, Moor B, Snedeker JG, Gerber C (2008) Influence of component positioning on impingement in conventional total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23(2):175–83. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.009 CrossRef

14.

Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postacchini R (2009) Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(3):366–70. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.011 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Pearl ML (2005) Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):99S–104S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.025 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G (2005) Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):111S–121S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.026 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sassoon A, Schoch B, Rhee P, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2013) The role of eccentric and offset humeral head variations in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(7):886–93. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.008 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kadum B, Mukka S, Englund E, Sayed-Noor A, Sjödén G (2014) Clinical and radiological outcome of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS®) reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective comparative non-randomised study. Int Orthop 38(5):1001–6. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2277-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Atoun E, Van Tongel A, Hous N, Narvani A, Relwani J, Abraham R, Levy O (2014) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a short metaphyseal humeral stem. Int Orthop 38(6):1213–8. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2328-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Terrier A, Ramondetti S, Merlini F, Pioletti DD, Farron A (2010) Biomechanical consequences of humeral component malpositioning after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(8):1184–90. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.06.006 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Irlenbusch U, End S, Kilic M (2011) Differences in reconstruction of the anatomy with modern adjustable compared to second-generation shoulder prosthesis. Int Orthop 35(5):705–11. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1084-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Pearl ML, Kurutz S (1999) Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(5):660–71PubMed

23.

Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S (1992) The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(4):491–500PubMed

24.

Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Jacob HA, Gerber C (2004) Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction, An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):575–80PubMed

25.

Boileau P, Walch G (1997) The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 79(5):857–65CrossRef

26.

Jeong J, Bryan J, Iannotti JP (2009) Effect of a variable prosthetic neck-shaft angle and the surgical technique on replication of normal humeral anatomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(8):1932–41. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00729 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Horneij E, Holmström E, Hemborg B, Isberg PE, Ekdahl C (2002) Interrater reliability and between-days repeatability of eight physical performance tests. Adv Physiother 4:146–60. doi:10.1080/14038190260501596 CrossRef

28.

Rheault W, Albright B, Beyers C, Franta M, Johnson A, Skowronek M, Dougherty J (1992) Intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 15(3):147–50CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lindell O, Eriksson L, Strender L-E (2007) The reliability of a 10-test package for patients with prolonged back and neck pain: could an examiner without formal medical education be used without loss of quality? A methodological study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:31. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-31 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Kadum B, Sayed-Noor AS, Perisynakis N, Baea S, Sjödén G (2015) Radiologic assessment of glenohumeral relationship: reliability and reproducibility of lateral humeral offset. Surg Radiol Anat [Epub ahead of print]

31.

Rozing PM, Obermann WR (1999) Osteometry of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(5):438–42CrossRefPubMed

Title: Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses
Authors: Bakir Kadum
Hamid Hassany
Mats Wadsten
Arkan Sayed-Noor
Göran Sjödén
Publication date: 01-04-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2935-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Slip abductor pollicis longus suspension tendinoplasty for management of trapezio-metacarpal joint osteoarthritis

A novel combination of computer-assisted reduction technique and three dimensional printed patient-specific external fixator for treatment of tibial fractures

Modified head-neck offset for diagnosing anterior femoro-acetabular impingement

A critical analysis of radiographic factors in patients who develop dislocation after elective primary total hip arthroplasty

Is it safe to reconstruct the knee Anterolateral Ligament with a femoral tunnel? Frequency of Lateral Collateral Ligament and Popliteus Tendon injury

Attractive papers and accurate English