Clinical and radiological results 7 years after Copeland shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: an independent multicentre retrospective study

Survivorship of shoulder arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis: an analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis in the young patient remains challenging. The higher functional demands and higher expectations of the young patient cohort are often coupled with increased failure and revision rates. Consequently, shoulder surgeons are faced with a unique challenge with implant selection. The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and reasons for revision of 5 classes of shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged <55 years with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis by use of data from a large national arthroplasty registry.

METHODS

The study population included all primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis in patients aged <55 years and reported to the registry between September 1999 and December 2021. Procedures were grouped into the following classes: total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty resurfacing (HRA), hemiarthroplasty stemmed metallic head (HSMH), hemiarthroplasty stemmed pyrocarbon head (HSPH), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and sex, to compare revision rates among groups.

RESULTS

There were 1564 shoulder arthroplasty procedures in patients aged <55 years, of which 361 (23.1%) were HRA, 70 (4.5%) were HSMH, 159 (10.2%) were HSPH, 714 (45.7%) were TSA, and 260 (16.6%) were RTSA. HRA had a higher rate of revision than RTSA after 1 year (HRA = 2.51 (95% CI 1.30, 4.83), P = .005), with no difference prior to that time. In addition, HSMH had a higher rate of revision than RTSA for the entire period (HR, 2.69 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.63], P = .008). There was no significant difference in the rate of revision for HSPH and TSA when they were compared with RTSA. Glenoid erosion was the most common cause of revision for HRA (28.6% of revisions) and HSMH (50%). Instability/dislocation was the leading cause of revision for RTSA (41.7%) and HSPH (28.6%), and for TSA, the majority of revisions were for either instability/dislocation (20.6%) or loosening (18.6%).

CONCLUSION

These results should be interpreted within the context of the lack of availability of long-term data on RTSA and HSPH stems. RTSA outperforms all implants regarding revision rates at mid-term follow-up. The high early dislocation rate associated with RTSA, as well as the lack of revision options available to address this, indicates that careful selection of patients and a greater appreciation of anatomic risk factors are needed in the future.

Shoulder joint arthroplasty in young patients: Analysis of 8742 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Background

Shoulder replacement is a reliable treatment for the relief of pain and improvement of function in patients with glenohumeral arthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, osteonecrosis and fracture. Limited data is available comparing revision rates for the different types of shoulder replacement when used in younger patients. This study aims to compare the survivorship of hemi resurfacing, stemmed hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in younger patients using data from a large national arthroplasty registry.

Methods

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry was obtained for the period 16 April 2004-31 December 2018. The study population included all shoulder arthroplasty patients aged <65 years. These were stratified into two groups: <55 years and 55-64 years. A total of 8742 primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures were analysed (1936 procedures in the <55 years and 6806 in the 55-64 years age group).

Results

In the <55 years age group, there was no difference in revision rate for total shoulder arthroplasty versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at any time point. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower revision rate after six months when compared to hemi resurfacing (HRA) (p = 0.031). Also, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a higher early rate of revision in the first 12 months compared to hemiarthroplasty (p = 0.018). However, from 2 years reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower revision rate overall (p = 0.029).In the 55-64 years patient age group, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower earlier revision rate. This was statistically significant compared to hemi resurfacing (HRA) (p = 0.028), hemiarthroplasty (p = 0.049) and total shoulder arthroplasty (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that for patients aged <55 years there was no significant difference in the rate of revision when total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were compared. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower rate of revision when compared to hemi resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty after 2 years. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had the lowest comparative revision rate in patients aged 55-64 years overall.

Inpatients with shoulder osteoarthritis who received integrative Korean medicine treatment: Long-term follow-up of an observation study

This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical efficacy of and satisfaction with integrative Korean medicine (KM) treatment in patients with shoulder osteoarthritis (SOA). We conducted a prospective observational study of patients with SOA. Patients aged 19 years and older who underwent inpatient treatment for more than 1 week were eligible for enrollment in the study. The primary evaluation index was the numeric rating scale for shoulder pain. Sub-evaluation indices included the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index for shoulder function, EuroQol-5-dimension score for overall quality of life, and Patient Global Impression of Change. Outcome measures were assessed at admission, discharge, and follow-up. For the follow-up questionnaire survey, the following information was collected: current status, surgery after discharge, reasons for finding integrative KM treatment satisfactory/unsatisfactory, and quality of life after discharge. In total, 186 patients were enrolled in the primary analysis, and 103 patients completed the follow-up survey. The mean number of days of follow-up was 1019 ± 439. Compared with the baseline, the mean differences in the numeric rating scale and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index were 3.05 ± 0.34 and 36.06 ± 5.53, respectively. Regarding the Patient Global Impression of Change, 89 out of 103 (86.4%) patients chose "minimally improved" or better. Furthermore, the EuroQol-5-dimension score also increased, showing an improvement of health-related quality of life after treatment. Integrative KM treatment is a potential option for reducing pain severity and improving function and health-related quality of life in patients with SOA. Prospective randomized studies would support this finding for the next step.

Early offset-increasing migration predicts later revision for humeral head resurfacing implants. A randomized controlled radiostereometry trial with 10-year clinical follow-up

In a randomized controlled setting, medium-term implant migration and long-term clinical outcomes were compared for the Copeland and the Global C.A.P. humeral head resurfacing implants (HHRI). Thirty-two patients (mean age 63 years) were randomly allocated to a Copeland (n = 14) or Global C.A.P. (n = 18) HHRI. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometry, Constant Shoulder Score, and the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS). WOOS and revision status were also obtained cross-sectionally at a mean 10-year follow-up. At the 5-year follow-up, total translation (TT) was 0.75 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.97) for the Copeland HHRIs and 1.15 mm (95% CI: 0.85-1.46) for the Global C.A.P. HHRIs (p = 0.04), but the clinical scores were similar at all follow-ups. The cumulative risks of revision at 5 and 10 years were 29% and 43% for Copeland and 35% and 41% for Global C.A.P HHRIs (p > 0.7). No implants were loose at revision, but HHRIs that were later revised followed an early offset-increasing migration pattern with medial translation and lift-off resulting in a mean 0.53 mm (95% CI: 0.18-0.88) higher TT at the 1-year follow-up compared to non-revised HHRIs. In conclusion, the Global C.A.P. HHRI had higher TT compared with the Copeland HHRI, but clinical scores and revision rates were similar. Nonetheless, revision rates were high and challenge the use of HHRIs. Interestingly, an early radiostereometry evaluated HHRI migration pattern with increased off-set predicted later implant revision.

Mid-term outcomes of pyrolytic carbon humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared with metal humeral resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis in young patients: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in young patients remains an unsolved problem. Humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads are 2 surgical options that avoid the complications of loosening or wear of the glenoid component seen in total shoulder arthroplasty. Despite the potential benefits, improvement in survivorship has not been demonstrated from joint registry studies or other studies at mid-term follow-up. This is predominantly because of glenoid erosion and pain that occur when the metal resurfaced head articulates with the native glenoid. The use of pyrolytic carbon (pyrocarbon) as a resurfacing material has been proposed as an alternative bearing surface thought to reduce glenoid erosion owing to a marked reduction in wear rates in vitro. This study aimed to compare the survivorship of shoulder hemi-resurfacing using pyrocarbon with shoulder hemi-resurfacing and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for all patients aged <55 years who had undergone a primary shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2019. The outcomes of shoulder procedures using pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing were compared with procedures using metal hemi-resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty. The reasons for revision in each arthroplasty class were analyzed. The analyses were undertaken using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

We analyzed 393 primary shoulder procedures, of which 163 were pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing procedures, 163 were metal hemi-resurfacing procedures, and 67 were metal stemmed hemiarthroplasties.The cumulative percentage of revision at 6 years was 8.9% for pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing, 17.1% for metal hemi-resurfacing, and 17.5% for metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty. Pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing prostheses had a statistically lower revision rate than other hemi-resurfacing prostheses (HR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.93; P = .032). Pain, prosthesis fracture, and infection were the key reasons for revision. No pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing cases were revised for glenoid erosion. In male patients, pyrocarbon humeral resurfacing had a lower cumulative percentage of revision compared with metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty (HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.93; P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Pyrocarbon humeral resurfacing arthroplasty had statistically lower revision rates at mid-term follow-up in patients aged <55 years compared with other hemi-resurfacing procedures.

Long-term results of the uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty (Global Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis)

BACKGROUND

Treatment with uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty has proved to be viable for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis at short- and mid-term follow-up. This study was essential to determine whether those outcomes will endure. This study presents the long-term results of the Global Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis (CAP) uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA).

METHODS

All patients with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis and an intact and clinically sufficient rotator cuff who underwent uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty between 2007 and 2009 were included. The data of all patients who completed the 10-year follow-up assessments were used for analysis. The visual analog scale pain score, Dutch version of the Simple Shoulder Test score, Constant score, Short Form 12 scores, and physical examination findings were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively on an annual basis. All complications and revisions were documented. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening, luxation or subluxation, migration, and glenoid erosion.

RESULTS

Of 48 shoulders, 23 (48%, 18 women and 5 men) were available for the 10-year follow-up assessments and their data were used for analysis. The main reasons for dropout were revision (27%) and death (10%). The mean follow-up period of the remaining patients was 10.9 years (range, 9-13 years). The visual analog scale pain score (from 6.5 ± 2.1 to 0.7 ± 1.6, P < .001), Simple Shoulder Test (Dutch version) score (from 22% ± 22% to 79% ± 22%, P < .001), Constant score (from 40 ± 29 to 70 ± 8, P < .001), and Short Form 12 physical score (from 36 ± 7 to 41 ± 12, P = .001) improved significantly compared with preoperative scores. Revision surgery was performed in 13 of the initial 48 shoulders (27%). Most revisions were seen within 7 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Two revisions have been performed in the mid-term to long term because of increased functional outcome scores and the absence of signs of loosening. Nevertheless, the high overall revision rate of 27% between short- and long-term follow-up reflects the need to limit the use of uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty versus stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

Background

Though total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has been an acknowledged treatment option for glenohumeral osteoarthritis, resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) may be preferred in some circumstances by surgeons, especially for treating young or active patients. However, decision-making between the RHA and SHA is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically compare two surgical procedures in terms of postoperative functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM), pain relief, complication rates, risk of revision.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 1, 2020, for all articles that compared the clinical effectiveness and safety of RHA with SHA. All eligible studies were selected based on certain screening criteria. Two investigators independently conducted the quality assessment and extracted the data. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used for pooled results according to the degree of heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed by employing Stata software 14.0.

Results

A total of six comparative studies involving 2568 shoulders (1356 RHA and 1212 SHA) were included in the final analysis. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year in each study. Pooled results showed that RHA was associated with a better visual analog scale (SMD 0.61, p = 0.001) but higher revision rates (OR 1.50, p = 0.016) when compared to SHA. There were no significant differences in functional outcomes, such as Constant-Murley score (SMD 0.06, P = 0.878), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (SMD 0.05, P = 0.880), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (SMD 0.43, p = 0.258) and quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (SMD 0.06, p = 0.669). In addition, no differences were observed in forward flexion (SMD 0.16, p = 0.622), external rotation (SMD -0.17, P = 0.741) and overall complication rates (OR 1.42, p = 0.198).

Conclusion

This is the first meta-analysis to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of RHA in comparison with SHA for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The results demonstrated that the two surgical techniques were equivalent in terms of postoperative functional outcomes and complication rate. However, RHA provided greater pain relief but posed a higher risk for revision than SHA. More high-quality studies with long-term follow up are warranted to give more convincing evidence.

6-Year clinical results and survival of Copeland Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in a consecutive series of 279 cases

BACKGROUND

Medium-term clinical results and survival of the Copeland resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder (CRHA) in a large consecutive group are presented with a comparison of outcomes for underlying pathologies.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients undergoing CRHA over 14 years was retrospectively analysed with no exclusions. Patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up by an independent assessor. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Constant-Murley Score (CMS). Pain and satisfaction was assessed using a visual analogue score.

RESULTS

279 CRHAs were performed in 242 patients between 2002 and 2016. The mean follow-up was 6 years. The indication for surgery was osteoarthritis (OA) in 212, inflammatory arthropathy (RA) in 35, rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) in 22 and avascular necrosis (AVN) in 2. For the OA group, 5-year survival was 90%, 10-year survival was 83% and mean survival was 13.2 years (95% CI 12.5-13.9). The mean OSS was 35.0 and mean CMS 49.9. CRHA for CTA had significantly poorer (p < 0.001) 5-year survival (55%), 10-year survival (41%) and mean survival (5.9 years, 95% CI 4.7-7.2). Mean OSS was 23.6 and mean CMS 30.3, which was poorer than for OA (p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis of OA patients found significantly better survival (p = 0.013) in those aged over 65 years but no difference in functional outcome.

CONCLUSION

CRHA remains a reasonable option for OA in patients with an intact rotator cuff and with sufficient bone stock, especially in those aged over 65 years. With poorer functional outcomes and survival, CRHA should not be offered in those with CTA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (retrospective comparative study).

Clinical and radiological outcomes of 17 reverse shoulder arthroplasty cases performed after failed humeral head resurfacing

INTRODUCTION

Despite the good outcomes with shoulder resurfacing procedures reported by some authors, our team has documented several failures caused by glenoid erosion and rotator cuff rupture, likely due to implant overstuffing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) performed after failed humeral head resurfacing (HHR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study of 17 patients who underwent RSA after failed HHR between January 2011 and February 2016. The mean patient age was 69.4 years and the mean time between HHR and surgical revision was 41 months (14.7-73.5±18.8). Preoperative ultrasonography and CT were used to evaluate the condition of the rotator cuff, extent of glenoid erosion and to look for signs of humeral cup loosening. The clinical outcomes were evaluated pre- and postoperatively using the simple shoulder test (SST), DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) and the Constant-Murley score. Pain was estimated using a visual analog scale (VAS). The range of motion (ROM) was determined pre- and postoperatively. All patients had standard AP and lateral X-ray views of the shoulder taken as part of their postoperative follow-up protocol to look for implant loosening.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 35.9 months (24-59±10.7). There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. All the functional scores were improved after RSA. The median weighted Constant score preoperatively was 46% (36; 62) while it was 92% postoperatively (78; 100) (p<0.0001). The active ROM improved by 65° in forward flexion (p=0.0003) and by 30° in external rotation (p=0.002). On X-rays, we identified one patient with Sirveaux stage 4 glenoid notching and one patient with a humeral periprosthetic radiolucent line less than 2mm thick in zone 6, with no clinical consequences.

CONCLUSION

The excellent outcomes after RSA for failed HHR in our study are similar to the ones reported when RSA is performed for cuff tear arthropathy.

Preoperative Comorbidities and Postoperative Complications Do Not Influence Patient-Reported Satisfaction Following Humeral Head Resurfacing: Mid- to Long-term Follow-up of 106 Patients

Background

Humeral head resurfacing (HHR) has emerged as an alternative treatment for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We investigated the outcomes of HHR using validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on 213 patients who underwent HHR. A PRO follow-up was performed by administering a questionnaire including the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score, Brophy activity survey, short form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH) survey, and general shoulder function. PRO scores were stratified by comorbidities and complications.

Results

Survey responses were received from 106 patients (51%), with a mean follow-up of 5.6 ± 1.8 years (range: 9 months to 6.1 years). Preoperative comorbidities were associated with significantly higher quickDASH scores. Postoperative complications were associated with significantly higher rates of current pain, higher visual analog scale scores, night pain, lower subjective shoulder values, and lower ASES pain and total scores. No differences in patient satisfaction were identified between the cohorts with and without preoperative comorbidities and between the cohorts with and without postoperative complications.

Conclusion

In our cross-sectional analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes following HHR, preoperative comorbidities, or postoperative complications had no impact on patient-perceived postoperative satisfaction or most PROs. HHR is clinically viable in a wide variety of patients. Future work is necessary to compare the efficacy of HHR compared with more traditional total shoulder arthroplasty and stemmed hemiarthroplasty regarding long-term outcomes and appropriate indications.

Optimal management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) is defined as progressive loss of articular cartilage, resulting in bony erosion, pain, and decreased function. This article provides a gross overview of this disease, along with peer-reviewed research by experts in the field. The pathology, diagnosis, and classification of this condition have been well described. Treatment begins with non-operative measures, including oral and topical anti-inflammatory agents, physical therapy, and intra- articular injections of either a corticosteroid or a viscosupplementation agent. Operative treatment is based on the age and function of the affected patient, and treatment of young individuals with glenohumeral OA remains controversial. Various methods of surgical treatment, ranging from arthroscopy to resurfacing, are being evaluated. The roles of hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are similarly reviewed with supporting data.