Current controversies in shoulder arthroplasty:

Surface Replacement Arthroplasty of the Humeral Head in Young, Active Patients: Midterm Results

Background:

The treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in young, active patients remains controversial. Standard total shoulder arthroplasty in this patient group has not obtained the same satisfaction rate as in older patients. One surgical option that has emerged is humeral resurfacing.

Hypothesis:

Humeral head surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) would provide satisfactory clinical outcomes in active patients, allowing them to maintain their normal lifestyle without activity restrictions.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

From 2004 to 2007, all consecutive surface replacement arthroplasties of the humerus performed at the authors’ institution were identified and retrospectively reviewed, and 118 patients who underwent SRA during this time were identified. This study included patients younger than 60 years who wished to maintain an active lifestyle; 52 of the 118 patients met the inclusion criteria. University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores and subjective shoulder value (SSV) scores were used to measure clinical outcomes at an average follow-up of 6 years (range, 4-8 years). Of the 52 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 48 were contacted and examined for the study, with 4 patients lost to follow-up.

Results:

The mean postoperative UCLA score was 28.03, with 1 patient requiring revision because of pain and glenoid wear. The mean SSV was 92% (range, 0%-100%), with 3 patients restricting their activity because of the shoulder. Forty-seven of the 48 contacted patients stated that, given the option, they would have the same surgery again. One patient required revision surgery because of pain.

Conclusion:

Surface replacement arthroplasty provided reasonable results in patients younger than 60 years with high activity demands with a low rate of revision at midterm follow-up.

Glenoid or not glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis

The optimal choice for the treatment of end-stage primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains controversial, with alternatives including total shoulder replacement (TSR) and humeral head replacement (HHR). The objective of this review is to analyze the effect of TSR compared with HHR on rates of pain relief, range of motion, patient satisfaction and revision surgery in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Compared with HHR, TSR provided significantly greater pain relief, gain in forward elevation, and gain in external rotation and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, TSR required significantly less revision surgery glenoid component loosening than patients undergoing HHR (progression of osteoarthritis changes with subchondral sclerosis, joint space narrowing and glenoid subsidence). A convex-back pegged glenoid component with a modern instrumented cement pressurization technique achieves risk of loosening. For 10 years, a high interest regarding new designs of un-cemented metal back glenoid components has developed with promising results, because they allow glenoid bone graft in case of glenoid erosion or dysplasia and a one-stage glenoid bone reconstruction in case of revision surgery.

Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review

The optimal choice for the treatment of end-stage primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains controversial, with alternatives including total shoulder replacement (TSR) and humeral head replacement (HHR). The objective of this review was to analyze the effect of TSR compared with HHR on rates of pain relief, range of motion, patient satisfaction, and revision surgery in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We searched computerized databases for clinical studies published between 1966 and 2004 that reported on shoulder replacement for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Pain data were converted to a 100-point score. Outcome assessment data were pooled when possible, and analyses via normal test statistics were performed. We identified 23 studies, with a total of 1952 patients and mean follow-up of 43.4 months (range, 30-116.4 months). The mean level of evidence was 3.73. Among the 23 studies, 7 different outcome instruments were used. Of the 23 studies, 14 (n = 1185) reported pain relief, 15 (n = 1080) reported range of motion, 12 (n = 969) reported patient satisfaction, and 14 (n = 1474) reported revision surgery. Compared with HHR, TSR provided significantly greater pain relief (P < .0001), forward elevation (P < .0001), gain in forward elevation (P < .0001), gain in external rotation (P = .0002), and patient satisfaction (P < .0001). Furthermore, only 6.5% of all TSRs required revision surgery, which was significantly lower than the percentage for all patients undergoing HHR (10.2%) (P < .025). Only 1.7% of all-polyethylene glenoid components required revision. On the basis of this review and analysis, in comparison with HHR, TSR for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis significantly improves pain relief, range of motion, and satisfaction and has a significantly lower rate of revision surgery. Inconsistent outcome reporting and poor study design may warrant standardization of outcome instruments and improved study design in the future.