Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 3/2012

01-03-2012 | Original Paper

Variability of medial and posterior offset in patients with fourth-generation stemmed shoulder arthroplasty

Authors: Ulrich Irlenbusch, Alexander Berth, Georges Blatter, Peter Zenz

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Most anthropometric data on the proximal humerus has been obtained from deceased healthy individuals with no deformities. Endoprostheses are implanted for primary and secondary osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, humeral-head necrosis, fracture sequelae and other humeral-head deformities. This indicates that pathologicoanatomical variability may be greater than previously assumed. We therefore investigated a group of patients with typical shoulder replacement diagnoses, including posttraumatic and rheumatic deformities.

Material and methods

One hundred and twenty-two patients with a double eccentrically adjustable shaft endoprosthesis served as a specific dimension gauge to determine in vivo the individual humeral-head rotation centres from the position of the adjustable prosthesis taper and the eccentric head.

Results

All prosthesis heads were positioned eccentrically. The entire adjustment range of the prosthesis of 12 mm medial/lateral and 6 mm dorsal/ventral was required. Mean values for effective offset were 5.84 mm mediolaterally [standard deviation (SD) 1.95, minimum +2, maximum +11] and 1.71 mm anteroposteriorly (SD 1.71, minimum −3, maximum 3 mm), averaging 5.16 mm (SD 1.76, minimum +2, maximum + 10). The posterior offset averaged 1.85 mm (SD 1.85, minimum −1, maximum + 6 mm).

Conclusions

In summary, variability of the combined medial and dorsal offset of the humeral-head rotational centre determined in patients with typical underlying diagnoses in shoulder replacement was not greater than that recorded in the literature for healthy deceased patients. The range of deviation is substantial and shows the need for an adjustable prosthetic system.
Literature
1.
Boileau P, Walch G (1999) Anatomical study of the proximal humerus: surgical technique considerations and prosthetic design rationale. In: Walch G, Boileau P (eds) Shoulder arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 69–82CrossRef
2.
Buchler P, Farron A (2004) Benefits of an anatomical reconstruction of the humeral head during shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech 19:16–23CrossRef
3.
Favre P, Moor B, Snedeker JG, Gerber C (2008) Influence of component positioning on impingement in conventional total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech 23:175–183CrossRef
4.
Gerber A, Ghalambor N, Warner JJ (2001) Instability of shoulder arthroplasty: balancing mobility and stability. Orthop Clin North Am 32-A:661–670CrossRef
5.
Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT (2002) Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:331–338PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ianotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S (1992) The normal glenohumeral relationships. J Bone Joint Surg 74-A:491–500
7.
Irlenbusch U, Blatter G, Gebhardt K, Pap G, Zenz P (2011) Prospective study of double eccentric hemi shoulder arthroplasty in different etiologies–Midterm results. Int Orthop 35(7):1015–1023PubMedCrossRef
8.
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):705–711PubMedCrossRef
9.
Irlenbusch U, Irlenbusch L (2007) Update in shoulder endoprosthetics (in German). Z Orthop Unfall up2date 4:289–309
10.
Jeong J, Bryan J, Ianotti JP (2009) Effect of variable prosthetic neck-shaft angle and the surgical technique on replication of normal humeral anatomy. J Bone Joint Surg 91-A:1932–1941CrossRef
11.
McPherson EJ, Friedman RJ, An YH, Chokesi R, Dooley RL (1997) Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 6:105–112PubMedCrossRef
12.
Nyffeler WR, Sheikh R, Jacob HAC, Gerber C (2004) Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. J Bone Joint Surg 86-A:575–580PubMed
13.
Nyffeler WR, Gerber C (2004) The relevance of anatomical reconstruction. In: Nice shoulder course: shoulder arthroscopy and arthroplasty. Current concepts. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, pp 315–316
14.
Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postachini R (2009) Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:366–370PubMedCrossRef
15.
Pearl ML (2005) Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:99S–104SPubMedCrossRef
16.
Pearl MI, Kurutz S (1999) Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 81(5):660–671
17.
Roberts SNJ, Foley APJ, Swallow HM, Wallace WA, Coughlan DP (1991) The geometry of the humeral head and the design of the prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 73B:647–650
18.
Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA (2005) Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:186–192PubMedCrossRef
19.
Walch G, Boileau P (1999) Prosthetic adaptability: a new concept for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:443–451PubMedCrossRef
20.
Williams GR, Wong KL, Pepe MD, Tan V, Silverberg D, Ramsey ML, Karduna A, Ianotti JP (2001) The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on Glenohumeral translations, range of motion and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:399–409PubMedCrossRef
21.
Wirth MA, Ondrla J, Southworth C, Kaar K, Anderson BC, Rockwood CA (2007) Replicating proximal humeral articular geometry with a third-generation implant: a radiographic study in cadaveric shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:111S–116SCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Variability of medial and posterior offset in patients with fourth-generation stemmed shoulder arthroplasty
Authors
Ulrich Irlenbusch
Alexander Berth
Georges Blatter
Peter Zenz
Publication date
01-03-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1365-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

International Orthopaedics 3/2012 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Wide resection of sacral chordoma via a posterior approach

Letter to the Editor

Reply to the letter to the editor: Could the use of bone morphogenetic proteins in fracture healing do more harm than good to our patients?

Original Paper

Reliability and predictability of the centre-edge angle in the assessment of pincer femoroacetabular impingement

Original Paper

Genomic polymorphisms of G-Protein Estrogen Receptor 1 are associated with severity of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Letter to the Editor

Letter regarding Lerch et al.: Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study

Original Paper

Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach