Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Anatomic stemless shoulder arthroplasty and related outcomes: a systematic review

Authors: Nael Hawi, Mark Tauber, Michael Joseph Messina, Peter Habermeyer, Frank Martetschläger

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

Background

The latest generation of shoulder arthroplasty includes canal-sparing respectively stemless designs that have been developed to allow restoration of the glenohumeral center of rotation independently from the shaft, and to avoid stem-related complications. The stemless prosthesis design has also recently been introduced for use in reverse arthroplasty systems.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature for studies of currently available canal-sparing respectively stemless shoulder arthroplasty systems. From the identified series, we recorded the indications, outcome measures, and humeral-sided complications.

Results

We identified 11 studies of canal-sparing respectively stemless anatomic shoulder arthroplasty implants, published between 2010 and 2016. These studies included 929 cases, and had a mean follow-up of 26 months (range, 6 to 72 months). The rates of humeral component-related complications ranged between 0 and 7.9 %. The studies reported only a few isolated cases of complications of the humeral component. Some arthroplasty systems are associated with radiological changes, but without any clinical relevance.

Conclusions

All of the published studies of canal-sparing respectively stemless shoulder arthroplasty reported promising clinical and radiological outcomes in short to midterm follow-up. Long-term studies are needed to demonstrate the long-term value of these kind of implants.

Neer 2nd CS. Articular replacement for the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37-A:215–28.CrossRefPubMed

Neer 2nd CS. Replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56:1–13.CrossRefPubMed

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

Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Rispoli DM, Cofield RH. Periprosthetic humeral fractures during shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:594–603. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00439.CrossRefPubMed

Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood Jr CA. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2279–92. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00125.PubMed

Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:19–22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.CrossRefPubMed

Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:471–9. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.009.CrossRefPubMed

Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF. Factors predicting complication rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:557–63. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.005.CrossRefPubMed

Kumar S, Sperling JW, Haidukewych GH, Cofield RH. Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:680–9.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:604–13. doi:10.1016/S1058274604001296.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wirth MA, Rockwood Jr CA. Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:603–16.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5- to 10-year results with the Copeland mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:213–21.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:266–71. doi:10.1016/S1058274604000229.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Levy O, Funk L, Sforza G, Copeland SA. Copeland surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:512–8.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mullett H, Levy O, Raj D, Even T, Abraham R, Copeland SA. 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. 2007;89:1466–9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B11.18850.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Al-Hadithy N, Domos P, Sewell MD, Naleem A, Papanna MC, Pandit R. 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. 2012;21:1776–81. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.024.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Alizadehkhaiyat O, Kyriakos A, Singer MS, Frostick SP. Outcome of Copeland shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty with a 4-year mean follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:1352–8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.027.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Churchill RS, Chuinard C, Wiater JM, Friedman R, Freehill M, Jacobson S, Spencer Jr E, Holloway GB, Wittstein J, Lassiter T, Smith M, Blaine T, Nicholson GP. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the simpliciti canal-sparing shoulder arthroplasty system: a prospective two-year multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:552–60. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00181.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Huguet D, DeClercq G, Rio B, Teissier J, Zipoli B, Group T. 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. 2010;19:847–52. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

20.

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

21.

Razmjou H, Holtby R, Christakis M, Axelrod T, Richards R. Impact of prosthetic design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:206–14. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.04.016.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Berth A, Pap G. Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis: a comparison of the functional outcome after a minimum of two years follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013;14:31–7. doi:10.1007/s10195-012-0216-9.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Maier MW, Lauer S, Klotz MC, Bulhoff M, Spranz D, Zeifang F. Are there differences between stemless and conventional stemmed shoulder prostheses in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:275. doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0723-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Bell SN, Coghlan JA. Short stem shoulder replacement. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2014;8:72–5. doi:10.4103/0973-6042.140113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Schoch C, Huth J, Aghajev E, Bauer G, Mauch F. Die metaphysär verankerte Prothese bei posttraumatischer und primärer Omarthrose. Obere Extremität. 2011;6:275–81. doi:10.1007/s11678-011-0137-x.CrossRef

26.

Brunner UH, Fruth M, Rückl K, Magosch P, Tauber M, Resch H, Habermeyer P. Die schaftfreie Eclipse-Prothese – Indikation und mittelfristige Ergebnisse. Obere Extremität. 2012;7:22–8. doi:10.1007/s11678-011-0152-y.CrossRef

27.

Habermeyer P, Lichtenberg S, Tauber M, Magosch P. Midterm results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1463–72. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.023.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ho AG, Gowda AL, Wiater JM. Stemless humeral component in total shoulder arthroplasty: 2-year age-related clinical outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.023.

29.

Athwal GS. Spare the canal: stemless shoulder arthroplasty is finally here: commentary on an article by R. Sean Churchill, MD, et al.: “Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the simpliciti canal-sparing shoulder arthroplasty system. A prospective two-year multicenter study”. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:e28. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01350.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kadum B, Hassany H, Wadsten M, Sayed-Noor A, Sjoden G. Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses. Int Orthop. 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2935-z.

31.

Boileau P, Trojani C, Walch G, Krishnan SG, Romeo A, Sinnerton R. Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10:299–308. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115985.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Anatomic stemless shoulder arthroplasty and related outcomes: a systematic review
Authors: Nael Hawi
Mark Tauber
Michael Joseph Messina
Peter Habermeyer
Frank Martetschläger
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1235-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Anatomic stemless shoulder arthroplasty and related outcomes: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Whiplash(-like) injury diagnoses and co-morbidities – both before and after the injury: A national registry-based study

Impairment in the activities of daily living in older adults with and without osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and chronic back pain: a secondary analysis of population-based health survey data

Return-to-activity after anatomical reconstruction of acute high-grade acromioclavicular separation

Serum and bone pentosidine in patients with low impact hip fractures and in patients with advanced osteoarthritis

Effects of two neuromuscular training programs on running biomechanics with load carriage: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Hypophosphatasia and the risk of atypical femur fractures: a case–control study