Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-02-2015 | Original Paper

Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial

Authors: Jeppe V. Rasmussen, Bo S. Olsen, Anne Kathrine Sorensen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Stig Brorson

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2015

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to conduct a randomised, clinical trial comparing stemmed hemiarthroplasty and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Methods

A total of 40 shoulders (35 patients) were randomised to stemmed hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and evaluated three and 12 months postoperatively using the Constant-Murley score (CMS) and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender or pre-operative scores except for WOOS at baseline. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Significant improvements in CMS and WOOS were observed at one year after both arthroplasty designs. At one year, the mean CMS was 48.9 (range 6–80) after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and 59.1 (range 0–88) after stemmed hemiarthroplasty {mean difference 10.2 [95 % confidence interval (CI) −3.3 to 23.6], P = 0.14}. The mean WOOS was 59.2 (range 5.2–100.0) and 79.4 (range 12.8–98.6), respectively [mean difference 20.2 (95 % CI 3.4–36.9), P = 0.02]. No major complications occurred and there were no revisions.

Conclusions

The effects of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty tended to be inferior to those of stemmed hemiarthroplasty. It is unclear whether this reflects a real difference in effect or baseline differences due to the limited number of randomised patients. We suggest there is a need for a larger, more definitive trial.

Neer CS (1974) Replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56(1):1–13PubMed

Bishop JY, Flatow EL (2005) Humeral head replacement versus total shoulder arthroplasty: clinical outcomes–a review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):141S–146SPubMedCrossRef

Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G (2006) Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(5):562–575PubMedCrossRef

Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Némoz C et al (2003) A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12(3):207–213PubMedCrossRef

Godenèche A, Boileau P, Favard L, Le Huec JC, Lévigne C, Nové-Josserand L et al (2002) Prosthetic replacement in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder: early results of 268 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(1):11–18PubMedCrossRef

Hammond G, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Jun BJ, Lee TQ (2012) Biomechanical comparison of anatomic humeral head resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty in functional glenohumeral positions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(1):68–76. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00171 PubMedCrossRef

Norris TR, Iannotti JP (2002) Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(2):130–135PubMedCrossRef

Singh JA, Sperling J, Buchbinder R, McMaken K (2011) Surgery for shoulder osteoarthritis: a Cochrane systematic review. J Rheumatol 38(4):598–605. doi:10.3899/jrheum.101008 PubMedCrossRef

Copeland S (2006) The continuing development of shoulder replacement: “reaching the surface”. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(4):900–905PubMedCrossRef

10.

Levy O, Copeland SA (2001) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5- to 10-year results with the Copeland mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(2):213–221PubMedCrossRef

11.

Levy O, Copeland SA (2004) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13(3):266–271PubMedCrossRef

12.

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(2):186–192PubMedCrossRef

13.

Al-Hadithy N, Domos P, Sewell MD, Naleem A, Papanna MC, Pandit R (2012) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder for osteoarthritis: results of fifty Mark III Copeland prosthesis from an independent center with four-year mean follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(12):1776–1781. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.024 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Mechlenburg I, Amstrup A, Klebe T, Jacobsen SS, Teichert G, Stilling M (2013) The Copeland resurfacing humeral head implant does not restore humeral head anatomy. A retrospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(5):615–619. doi:10.1007/s00402-013-1715-8 PubMedCrossRef

15.

Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS (2008) Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(1):110–117. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01552 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Mansat P, Coutié AS, Bonnevialle N, Rongières M, Mansat M, Bonnevialle P (2012) Resurfacing humeral prosthesis: do we really reconstruct the anatomy? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(5):612–619. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.014 PubMedCrossRef

17.

Mullett H, Levy O, Raj D, Even T, Abraham R, Copeland SA (2007) Copeland surface replacement of the shoulder. Results of an hydroxyapatite-coated cementless implant in patients over 80 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(11):1466–1469PubMedCrossRef

18.

Raiss P, Pape G, Becker S, Rickert M, Loew M (2010) Cementless humeral surface replacement arthroplasty in patients less than 55 years of age. Orthopade 39(2):201–208. doi:10.1007/s00132-009-1525-4 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Thomas SR, Wilson AJ, Chambler A, Harding I, Thomas M (2005) Outcome of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(5):485–491PubMedCrossRef

20.

Burgess DL, McGrath MS, Bonutti PM, Marker DR, Delanois RE, Mont MA (2009) Shoulder resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(5):1228–1238. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01082 PubMedCrossRef

21.

Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P (2008) A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):355–361. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022 PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aärimaa V (2013) Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(12):1650–1655. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002 PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A (2001) The development of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 9(8):771–778PubMedCrossRef

24.

Rasmussen JV, Jakobsen J, Olsen BS, Brorson S (2013) Translation and validation of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index - the Danish version. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 4:49–54. doi:10.2147/PROM.S50976 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Polk A, Rasmussen JV, Brorson S, Olsen BS (2013) Reliability of patient-reported functional outcome in a joint replacement registry. A comparison of primary responders and non-responders in the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 84(1):12–17. doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.765622 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Pritchett JW (2011) Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20(5):771–777. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.014 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Fevang BT, Lygre SH, Bertelsen G, Skredderstuen A, Havelin LI, Furnes O (2013) Pain and function in eight hundred and fifty nine patients comparing shoulder hemiprostheses, resurfacing prostheses, reversed total and conventional total prostheses. Int Orthop 37(1):59–66. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1722-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

28.

Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Brorson S, Sørensen AK, Olsen BS (2014) Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry, 2006–2010. Acta Orthop 85(2):117–122. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.893497 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Sorensen AK, Olsen BS, Brorson S (2014) Outcome, revision rate and indication for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: 837 operations reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Bone Joint J 96-B(4):519–525. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.31850 PubMedCrossRef

Title: Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial
Authors: Jeppe V. Rasmussen
Bo S. Olsen
Anne Kathrine Sorensen
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Stig Brorson
Publication date: 01-02-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2505-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial

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 2/2015

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in acute fractures provides better results than in revision procedures for fracture sequelae

Results of cementless humeral head resurfacing with cemented glenoid components

Uncemented versus cemented humeral stem fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Acknowledgement to referees

Treatment of fracture sequelae of the proximal humerus: anatomical vs reverse shoulder prosthesis

Full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: correlation of findings by arthroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging