The short- to midterm effectiveness of stemless prostheses compared to stemmed prostheses for patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Anatomic glenohumeral arthroplasty: State of the art

Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty in its modern form where it reproduces the normal shoulder has been utilized clinically for more than half a century. As the technology and the designs have changed to recreate the humeral and glenoid sides of the joint, the sophistication of design has resulted in the growing number of cases annually worldwide. This increase is due in part to the increasing number of indications that the prosthesis can treat with successful results. On the humeral side, there have been design changes to better reflect the proximal humeral anatomy, and humeral stems are increasingly placed safely without cement. Platform systems which allow conversion of a failed arthroplasty to a reverse configuration without stem extraction is another design change. Similarly, there has been increasing utilization of short stem and stemless humeral components. Extensive experience with shorter stem and stemless devices, however, has yet to demonstrate the purported advantages of these devices, as recent studies have demonstrated equivalent blood loss, fracture rates, operative times, and outcome scores. Easier revision with these shorter stems remains to be definitively established, with only one study comparing the ease of revision between stem types. On the glenoid side, hybrid cementless glenoids, inlay glenoids, cementless all-polyethylene glenoids, and augmented glenoids have all been investigated; however, the indications for these devices remain unclear. Lastly, innovative surgical approaches to implanting shoulder arthroplasty and the use of patient specific guides and computerized planning, while interesting concepts, still await validation before they are utilized on a widespread basis. While reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been increasingly used to reconstruct the arthritic shoulder, anatomic glenohumeral replacement maintains a significant role in the armamentarium of the shoulder surgeon.

Outcomes of different stem sizes in shoulder arthroplasty

Background

The successive refinement in implant design and operative technique alongwith improved understanding has resulted in increased incidence of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Simultaneously, the indications of TSA have widened and include a range of shoulder pathologies.

Methods

Using the keywords and relevant literature, we have described an overview of the different stem sizes used in shoulder arthroplasty. Relevant description of clinical and radiological outcome is done with regards to different stem sizes.

Discussion

There are plethora of shoulder replacement systems, based on unique philosophy and having their own advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, the rise in ageing population had increased the need for revision TSA, thereby necessitating the judicious choice of implant at primary TSA. We further present the role of cemented and uncemented humeral stems and discuss the findings of finite element analysis. The choice of humeral stem size and use of cemented or uncemented stems have been reported to affect the clinical and radiological outcomes.

Outcomes Between Stemmed and Stemless Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Both stemmed and stemless designs for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) have demonstrated efficacious outcomes for the surgical treatment of primary glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of stemmed versus stemless TSA in randomized controlled trials. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in Constant Score (CS), range of motion, or adverse events, such as periprosthetic fracture and/or revision surgery.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes of interest included CS, range of motion, and adverse events (periprosthetic fracture and revision). Summary effect estimates of the mean difference between stemmed and stemless TSA for each outcome were estimated in random effects models.

RESULTS

The search yielded 301 articles with 4 appropriate for qualitative analysis, including the results of 229 stemmed and 358 stemless TSAs. No significant difference was observed in postoperative CS (P = 0.36), forward flexion (P = 0.93), abduction (P = 0.30), or external rotation (P = 0.34) between stemmed and stemless TSA. No significant difference was observed in change in CS (P = 0.27), forward flexion (P = 0.25), or external rotation (P = 0.74). A change in abduction was significantly different between stemmed and stemless TSA (standardized mean difference = -0.64; 95% confidence interval, -1.20 to -0.08) in favor of stemmed TSA (P = 0.02), attributed to preoperative differences. No significant difference was observed in periprosthetic fractures (P = 0.07) or revision (P = 0.90).

CONCLUSION

TSA with stemless versus stemmed humeral components was not associated with notable differences in functional and clinical outcomes. No difference was observed between stemmed and stemless designs in postoperative forward flexion, abduction, or external rotation. Similarly, there was no difference in change in forward flexion or external rotation. A markedly greater improvement in abduction was observed with stemmed TSA, likely due to the lower preoperative motion in the stemmed cohort in one of the studies. No differences were observed between stemmed and stemless designs in the rate of humeral fracture or risk of revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II; systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Early fixation of the humeral component in stemless total shoulder arthroplasty : a radiostereometric and clinical study with 24-month follow-up

AIMS

Stemless humeral implants have been developed to overcome stem-related complications in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, stemless implant designs may hypothetically result in less stable initial fixation, potentially affecting long-term survival. The aim of this study is to investigate early fixation and migration patterns of the stemless humeral component of the Simpliciti Shoulder System and to evaluate clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, radiostereometric analysis (RSA) radiographs were obtained in 24 patients at one day, six weeks, six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. Migration was calculated using model-based RSA. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score.

RESULTS

At two years, median translation along the x-, y-, and z-axis was -0.12 mm (interquartile range (IQR) -0.18 to 0.02), -0.17 mm (IQR -0.27 to -0.09), and 0.09 mm (IQR 0.02 to 0.31). Median rotation around the x-, y-, and z-axis was 0.12° (IQR -0.50 to 0.57), -0.98° (IQR -1.83 to 1.23), and 0.09° (IQR -0.76 to 0.30). Overall, 20 prostheses stabilized within 12 months postoperatively. Four prostheses showed continuous migration between 12 and 24 months. At two-year follow-up, with the exception of one revised prosthesis, all clinical scores improved significantly (median VAS difference at rest: -3.0 (IQR -1.5 to -6.0); OSS 22.0 (IQR 15.0 to 25.0); CMS 29.5 (IQR 15.0 to 35.75); and DASH -30.0 (IQR -20.6 to -41.67) (all p < 0.001)) with the exception of one revised prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we found that 20 out of 24 implants stabilized within 12 months postoperatively. The significance of continuous migration in four implants is unclear and future research on the predictive value of early migration for future loosening in TSA is required. Clinical results revealed a clinically relevant improvement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):76-82.

Subscapularis management in stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a surgeon decision-making analysis study

Background

Stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) continues to grow in popularity as an evolution of stemmed humeral implants. Proposed advantages include bone preservation and ease of potential revision. However, absence of a stem may necessitate a change in subscapularis takedown approach. Specifically, there is theoretical concern about violation of supportive bone with lesser tuberosity osteotomy when using a stemless device. Therefore, the goal of this study was to identify if surgeons change their subscapularis takedown preference when performing stemless vs. stemmed TSA.

Methods and materials

Data from a consecutive series of patients who underwent stemmed and stemless TSA at an academic institution were collected. The subscapularis management technique was documented. Subscapularis takedown techniques were divided into 2 groups: soft-tissue approach (subscapularis tenotomy or peel) and bony approach (lesser tuberosity osteotomy). Historical preference for each surgeon was determined by evaluating techniques employed using stemmed TSA. A Cramers V analysis was run to determine the strength of association between this historical preference and subscapularis management technique used for stemless TSA.

Results

One hundred and fifty-four patients were included in this analysis. There were 72 and 82 stemmed and stemless arthroplasty cases performed, respectively. Of the 154 patients, 50.6% were women. The average age of patients was 64.2 years. Four surgeons were included in this study. In all, there were 79 and 75 bony and soft-tissue subscapularis techniques, respectively. The historical preference for 3 of the surgeons was a subscapularis bony approach, and the historical preference for one of the surgeons was a soft-tissue approach. A Cramer's V analysis was used to measure the relative strength of association between patient factors, historical subscapularis management preference, and subscapularis takedown approach in stemless TSA. Our analysis yielded a value of 0.65 (P < .01), indicating a redundant association between subscapularis management approach used between stemmed and stemless implant per surgeon.

Conclusion

In determining subscapularis tendon management strategy, in surgeons who performed stemmed TSA before stemless TSA, the subscapularis takedown approach used for stemless TSA is strongly associated with surgeon's historical preference for stemmed TSA. Future research will be needed to determine the clinical ramifications of this finding.