Hornung AL, Cohn MR, Mehta N, McCormick JR, Menendez ME, Pourzal R, Nicholson GP, Garrigues GE. The Definition of Periprosthetic Osteolysis in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Grading Schemes and Criteria.
JBJS Rev 2022;
10:01874474-202205000-00011. [PMID:
35613304 DOI:
10.2106/jbjs.rvw.22.00002]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic osteolysis is a known complication after shoulder arthroplasty that may lead to implant loosening and revision surgery. To date, there is no consensus in the shoulder arthroplasty literature regarding the definition of osteolysis or the grading criteria, thus making it difficult to quantify and compare outcomes involving this complication. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess how periprosthetic osteolysis in shoulder arthroplasty is defined and evaluated radiographically.
METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL was performed in August 2021 for studies that provided a definition and/or grading criteria for osteolysis in shoulder arthroplasty. Only studies with a minimum of 2 years of radiographic follow-up were included.
RESULTS
Thirty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. After consolidating studies by the same primary author that included the same grading criteria, 29 studies were examined for their definition and grading criteria for osteolysis. Of these, 19 (65.5%) evaluated osteolysis surrounding the glenoid and 18 (62.1%) evaluated osteolysis surrounding the humerus. There was considerable heterogeneity in the systems used to grade periprosthetic osteolysis surrounding the glenoid, whereas humeral periprosthetic osteolysis was often categorized via visualization into binary or categorical groups (e.g., presence versus absence; mild, moderate, or severe; partial versus complete). Four studies (13.8%) provided novel measurements for assessing either glenoid or humeral osteolysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable heterogeneity exists in the assessment and grading of periprosthetic osteolysis in shoulder arthroplasty. The most common grading systems were binary and used qualitative visual interpretation, making them relatively subjective and prone to bias. Quantitative measurements of osteolysis were infrequently utilized. A standardized method of assessing osteolysis would be of value to facilitate communication and research efforts.
Collapse