Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

Authors: Nicolai Sandau, Stig Brorson, Bo S. Olsen, Anne Kathrine Sørensen, Steen L. Jensen, Kim Schantz, Janne Ovesen, Jeppe V. Rasmussen

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

In a clinical setting, a visual evaluation of post-implant radiographs is often used to assess the restoration of glenohumeral joint anatomy after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and is a part of the decision-making process, in combination with other parameters, when evaluating patients with inferior clinical results. However, the reliability of this method of visual evaluation has not been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter- and intra-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing, implant positioning, and size following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty using plain standardized radiographs.

Methods

Six experienced shoulder surgeons independently classified implant inclination, size of the implant and if the joint seemed overstuffed, in 219 cases of post-implant radiographs. All cases were classified twice 3 weeks apart. Only radiographs with an anterior-posterior projection with a freely visible joint space were used. Non-weighted Cohen’s kappa values were calculated for each coder pair and the mean used as an estimate of the overall inter-observer agreement.

Results

The overall inter-observer agreement for implant size (kappa, 0.48 and 0.41) and inclination angle was moderate in both rounds (kappa, 0.46 and 0.44), but only a fair agreement was found concerning the evaluation for stuffing of the joint (kappa, 0.24 and 0.28). Intra-observer agreement for implant size and stuffing ranged from fair to substantial while the agreement for inclination was moderate to substantial.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that a visual evaluation of plain radiographs may be inadequate to evaluate overstuffing, implant positioning, and size following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty using plain standardized radiographs. Future studies may contribute to elucidate whether reliability increases if consensus on clear definitions and standardized methods of evaluation is made.

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 Elb Surg. 2012;21:1776–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.024.CrossRef

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

Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, Szerlip BW, Evans PJ, Nowinski RJ, Ricchetti ET, Iannotti JP. Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:1740–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.013.CrossRef

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report of the Australian Orthopaedic Association. Demographics and outcome of shoulder arthroplasty.2015

Wiater BP, JEJ M, Wiater JM. The evaluation of the failed shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:745–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.12.003.CrossRef

Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:110–7. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01552.CrossRefPubMed

Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1947–56. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02854.CrossRefPubMed

Buchner M, Eschbach N, Loew M. Comparison of the short-term functional results after surface replacement and total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a matched-pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128:347–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0404-x.CrossRefPubMed

Deladerrière JY, Szymanski C, Vervoort T, Budzik JF, Maynou C. Geometrical analysis results of 42 resurfacing shoulder prostheses: a CT scan study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:520–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.010.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Fevang BTS, Lygre SHL, Bertelsen G, Skredderstuen A, Havelin LI, Furnes O. Pain and function in eight hundred and fifty nine patients comparing shoulder hemiprostheses, resurfacing prostheses, reversed total and conventional total prostheses. Int Orthop. 2013;37:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1722-3.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Geervliet PC, van den Bekerom MPJ, Spruyt P, Curvers M, van Noort A, Visser CPJ. Outcome and revision rate of uncemented glenohumeral resurfacing (C.A.P.) after 5–8 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137:771–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2688-9.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kadum B, Sayed-Noor AS, Perisynakis N, Baea S, Sjödén GO. Radiologic assessment of glenohumeral relationship: reliability and reproducibility of lateral humeral offset. Surg Radiol Anat. 2015;37:363–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-015-1424-9.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lebon J, Delclaux S, Bonnevialle N, Rongières M, Bonnevialle P, Mansat P. Stemmed hemiarthroplasty versus resurfacing in primary shoulder osteoarthritis: a single-center retrospective series of 78 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100:S327–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.05.012.CrossRefPubMed

15.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(10)70074-9.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Levy O, Tsvieli O, Merchant J, Young L, Trimarchi A, Dattani R, Abraham R, Copeland SA, Narvani A, Atoun E. Surface replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than fifty years: results after a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.035.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Maier MW, Hetto P, Raiss P, Klotz M, Bülhoff M, Spranz D, Zeifang F. Cementless humeral head resurfacing for degenerative glenohumeral osteoarthritis fails at a high rate. J Orthop. 2018;15:349–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2018.02.013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Mansat P, Coutié AS, Bonnevialle N, Rongières M, Mansat M, Bonnevialle P. Resurfacing humeral prosthesis: do we really reconstruct the anatomy? J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:612–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.014.CrossRef

19.

Mechlenburg I, Amstrup A, Klebe T, Jacobsen SS, Teichert G, Stilling M. The Copeland resurfacing humeral head implant does not restore humeral head anatomy. A retrospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:615–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1715-8.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Mechlenburg I, Klebe TM, Døssing KV, Amstrup A, Søballe K, Stilling M. Evaluation of periprosthetic bone mineral density and postoperative migration of humeral head resurfacing implants: two-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:1427–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.012.CrossRef

21.

ML PEARL, KURUTZ S. Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement*. J Bone Jt Surg. 1999;81:660–71. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199905000-00007.CrossRef

22.

Pritchett JW. Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:771–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.014.CrossRef

23.

Rai P, Davies O, Wand J, Bigsby E. Long-term follow-up of the Copeland mark III shoulder resurfacing hemi-arthroplasty. J Orthop. 2016;13:52–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2015.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Sorensen AK, Hróbjartsson A, Brorson S. Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial. Int Orthop. 2014;39:263–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2505-9.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Sorensen AK, Olsen BS, Brorson S. 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 Jt J. 2014;96(B):519–25. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.31850.CrossRef

26.

Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Brorson S, Sørensen AK, Olsen BS. Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:117–22. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.893497.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Smith T, Gettmann A, Wellmann M, Pastor F, Struck M. Humeral surface replacement for osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop. 2013;84:468–72. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.838658.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Soudy K, Szymanski C, Lalanne C, Bourgault C, Thiounn A, Cotten A, Maynou C. Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103:415–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.12.015.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Stilling M, Mechlenburg I, Amstrup A, Soballe K, Klebe T. Precision of novel radiological methods in relation to resurfacing humeral head implants: assessment by radiostereometric analysis, DXA, and geometrical analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:1521–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1580-x.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, S a C. Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005;14:186–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2004.06.013.CrossRef

31.

Thomas SR, Wilson AJ, Chambler A, Harding I, Thomas M. Outcome of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005;14:485–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.011.CrossRef

32.

Youderian AR, Ricchetti ET, Drews M, Iannotti JP. Determination of humeral head size in anatomic shoulder replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:955–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.005.CrossRef

Title: Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs
Authors: Nicolai Sandau
Stig Brorson
Bo S. Olsen
Anne Kathrine Sørensen
Steen L. Jensen
Kim Schantz
Janne Ovesen
Jeppe V. Rasmussen
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-1008-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen in multimodal management for pain relief following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Clinical characteristics of pyogenic spondylitis and psoas abscess at a tertiary care hospital: a retrospective cohort study

Scaffolds for the repair of bone defects in clinical studies: a systematic review

Transcriptome analyses identify key genes and potential mechanisms in a rat model of osteoarthritis

Is the cup orientation different in bilateral total hip arthroplasty with right-handed surgeons using posterolateral approach?

3D printing-based minimally invasive cannulated screw treatment of unstable pelvic fracture