Radiostereometric analysis of keeled versus pegged glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized feasibility study

A comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up after total shoulder arthroplasty

Background

The two main glenoid types used in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are the pegged and keeled glenoid designs. We aimed to determine if a pegged glenoid is superior to a keeled glenoid at long-term follow-up as measured by range of motion (ROM), patient reported outcomes (PROs), and radiographic glenoid loosening.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing TSA by a single surgeon at an urban, academic hospital. The cohort was stratified into two groups based on glenoid type - one group consisting of keeled implants and a second group consisting of pegged implants. For each patient, forward elevation (FE), internal rotation (IR), external rotation (ER), visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, and simple shoulder test (SST) scores were collected preoperatively and at the most recent follow-up visit. Radiographic variables included acromiohumeral interval (AHI) and glenoid loosening.

Results

After applying exclusion criteria, 144 TSAs were included in our study. Of these, 42 (29.2%) had keeled glenoids and 102 (70.8%) had pegged glenoids. Patients with a pegged glenoid implant were older (67.4 vs. 60.7 years; p < 0.001) and had a shorter follow-up time (9.3 vs. 14.4 years; p < 0.001) than patients with a keeled glenoid implant. At the most recent follow-up visit, there were no significant differences among postoperative FE, ER, AHI, or PROs. However, pegged glenoid implants provided significantly more internal rotation (T11 vs. L1; p = 0.010) and were less likely to show evidence of radiographic glenoid loosening (16.7% vs. 42.9%; p=<0.001). Revision rates were not significantly different between the pegged and keeled groups (6.9% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.158).

Conclusion

Although a pegged design correlated with superior internal rotation and less radiographic glenoid loosening, both pegged and keeled glenoid designs offered favorable long-term clinical outcomes following TSA over the long-term.

Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty vs. metal augments in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is rapidly being adopted as the standard procedure for a growing number of shoulder pathologies. Lateralization of the glenoid component is known to reduce the incidence of scapular notching and possibly improve postoperative range of motion. A number of methods are used for glenoid component lateralization, including bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) and porous metal-augmented baseplates. Presently, there exists little comparative literature on bone vs. metal lateralization. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare BIO-RSA to metal-augmented glenoid baseplates by assessing clinical outcomes and baseplate migration using model-based radiostereometric analysis.

METHODS

A power analysis indicated 40 patients would be required for this radiostereometric study. Therefore, 41 shoulders were prospectively randomized to receive either glenoid bone grafting (BIO-RSA) or a porous metal-augmented wedge-shaped titanium baseplate for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. At the time of primary surgery, all patients also underwent implantation of 8 tantalum marker beads in the glenoid and coracoid. Following surgery, participants were imaged using a calibrated, stereo radiographic technique. Radiographs were acquired at 6 weeks (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Migration of the prosthesis was compared between bone and metal lateralization groups at each time point using a mixed effects model with Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons. Outcome measures were acquired preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed along any translation or rotation axis at any time point for either glenoid fixation group (P ≥ .175). Mean total glenoid component translation (± standard deviation) 2 years postoperatively was 0.4 ± 0.2 mm and 0.5 ± 0.3 mm for BIO-RSA and metal-augmented baseplates, respectively (P = .784). No significant differences were observed between groups in active range of motion; pain; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score; Simple Shoulder Test score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; Constant Shoulder score; or Subjective Shoulder Value (P ≥ .117), with the exception of increased active external rotation in the BIO-RSA cohort (P = .036).

CONCLUSION

This randomized clinical trial assessed reverse shoulder arthroplasty glenoid component migration using model-based radiostereometric analysis. At 2-year follow-up, our results indicate both BIO-RSA and porous metal wedge augmented baseplates provide stable initial fixation, which is maintained at 2 years' follow-up, with no substantial differences in clinical outcomes.

A phantom and cadaveric study of radiostereometric analysis in posterior cervical and lumbar spinal fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Detecting pseudarthrosis following spinal fusion is important for accurate diagnosis and treatment. Current diagnostic measures hold certain drawbacks. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is a radiographic technique with the capability to measure intervertebral segment changes and may be a novel way of assessing fusion.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work was to measure the accuracy and precision of RSA in instrumented posterior cervical and lumbar spinal fusion for measuring intervertebral movement. Further, to gain surgical practice with RSA in spine and determine optimal bead placements.

STUDY DESIGN

Artificial bone and cadaveric spine models were used to simulate a 3-level cervical (C3-C6) and a 2-level (L4-S1) lumbosacral posterior spinal fusion to analyze bead placements and to measure RSA accuracy and precision.

METHODS

Preliminary RSA bead placements were planned and measured in the artificial model. Secondary bead placements were adjusted slightly in the cadaveric model to consider additional fusion scenarios. Bead spread, detectability, and stability were measured to determine optimal placements. Translational and rotational precision of both models were measured. Accuracy was measured in the artificial spine model. Model-based RSA software was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Optimal bead placements were found to be throughout the lateral mass of C3-C6 and in the spinous process, transverse process, and within the screw canal of L4-S1. Detectability was high among all segments. Spread was greater in L4-S1 than C3-C6 due to bead collinearity along the transverse axis of the cervical vertebrae. Translational and rotational RSA accuracy in cervical and lumbosacral regions ranged between 0.005 to 0.014 mm and 0.058 to 0.208°. Translational and rotational precision measured in the phantom models ranged 0.017 to 0.131 mm and 0.058 to 0.394° in C3-C6, and 0.086 to 0.191 mm and 0.200 to 0.369° in L4-S1. Translational and rotational precision measured in the cadaveric models ranged 0.054 to 0.548 mm and 0.148 to 1.386° in C3-C6, and 0.068 to 0.164 mm and 0.100 to 0.270° in L4-S1.

CONCLUSIONS

RSA was found to be a feasible radiographic technique in C3-C6 and L4-S1 spinal fusion when measured in artificial and cadaveric models. Optimal bead placements were determined. Bead spread was shown to be better throughout the lumbar region than the cervical region due to anatomical size variations. RSA accuracy and precision were within acceptable RSA criteria.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The results from this work contribute to the accuracy, precision, and bead placements for studying RSA in cervical and lumbar spinal fusions. This work may further support the development of clinical studies to assess spinal fusion by evaluating postoperative intervertebral movement using RSA.

Shoulder replacement surgery for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy

BACKGROUND

Shoulder replacement surgery is an established treatment for patients with end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy who have not improved with non-operative treatment. Different types of shoulder replacement are commonly used, but their relative benefits and risks compared versus one another and versus other treatments are uncertain. This expanded scope review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of shoulder replacement surgery in adults with osteoarthritis (OA) of the shoulder, including rotator cuff tear arthropathy (RCTA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and Web of Science up to January 2019. We also searched clinical trial registers, conference proceedings, and reference lists from previous systematic reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing any type of shoulder replacement surgery versus any other surgical or non-surgical treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We also included randomised studies comparing any type of shoulder replacement or technique versus another. Study participants were adults with osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. We assessed the following major outcomes: pain, function, participant-rated global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and risk of revision or re-operation or treatment failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected trial data on benefits and harms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies involving 1083 participants (1105 shoulders). We found five studies comparing one type of shoulder replacement surgery to another type of shoulder replacement surgery, including three studies comparing conventional stemmed total shoulder replacement (TSR) surgery to stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty. The remaining 15 studies compared one type of shoulder replacement to the same type of replacement performed with a technical modification or a different prosthetic component. We found no studies comparing shoulder replacement surgery to any other type of surgical treatment or to any type of non-surgical treatment. We found no studies comparing reverse total shoulder replacement surgery to any other type of treatment or to any type of replacement. Trial size varied from 16 to 161 participants. Participant mean age ranged from 63 to 81 years. 47% of participants were male. Sixteen trials reported participants with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and intact rotator cuff tendons. Four trials reported patients with osteoarthritis and a rotator cuff tear or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for at least two domains, and only one study was free from high risk of bias (included in the main comparison). The most common sources of bias were lack of blinding of participants and assessors, attrition, and major baseline imbalance. Three studies allowed a comparison of conventional stemmed TSR surgery versus stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty in people with osteoarthritis. At two years, low-quality evidence from two trials (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggested there may be a small but clinically uncertain improvement in pain and function. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 is no pain), mean pain was 2.78 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 1.49 points lower (0.1 lower to 2.88 lower) after conventional stemmed TSR. On a scale of 0 to 100 (100 = normal function), the mean function score was 72.8 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 10.57 points higher (2.11 higher to 19.02 higher) after conventional stemmed TSR. There may be no difference in quality of life based on low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. On a scale of 0 to 100 (100 = normal), mean mental quality of life was rated as 57.4 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 1.0 point higher (5.1 lower to 7.1 higher) after conventional stemmed TSR. We are uncertain whether there is any difference in the rate of adverse events or the rate of revision, re-operation, or treatment failure based on very low-quality evidence (downgraded three levels for risk of bias and serious imprecision). The rate of any adverse event following stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty was 286 per 1000, and following conventional stemmed TSR 143 per 1000, for an absolute difference of 14% fewer events (25% fewer to 21% more). Adverse events included fractures, dislocations, infections, and rotator cuff failure. The rate of revision, re-operation, or treatment failure was 103 per 1000, and following conventional stemmed TSR 77 per 1000, for an absolute difference of 2.6% fewer events (8% fewer to 15% more). Participant-rated global assessment of treatment success was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although it is an established procedure, no high-quality randomised trials have been conducted to determine whether shoulder replacement might be more effective than other treatments for osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy of the shoulder. We remain uncertain about which type or technique of shoulder replacement surgery is most effective in different situations. When humeral hemiarthroplasty was compared to TSR surgery for osteoarthritis, low-quality evidence led to uncertainty about whether there is a clinically important benefit for patient-reported pain or function and suggested there may be little or no difference in quality of life. Evidence is insufficient to show whether TSR is associated with greater or less risk of harm than humeral hemiarthroplasty. Available randomised studies did not provide sufficient data to reliably inform conclusions about adverse events and harm. Although reverse TSR is now the most commonly performed type of shoulder replacement, we found no studies comparing reverse TSR to any other type of treatment.

A comparison of pegged vs. keeled glenoid components regarding functional and radiographic outcomes in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The number of total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) performed is increasing annually, with a continued effort to improve outcomes using new techniques and materials. In anatomic TSAs, the main options for glenoid fixation currently involve keeled or pegged components. The aim of this review was to determine which fixation option provides optimal long-term functional outcomes with decreased rates of revision surgery and radiolucency.

Methods

The MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were searched from 2007 to July 10, 2017, for all articles that examined TSAs using either pegged or keeled glenoid fixations. All studies were screened in duplicate for eligibility. Two separate analyses were completed examining noncomparative and comparative studies independently.

Results

A total of 7 comparative studies and 25 noncomparative studies were included in the final analysis. Included in the analysis were 4 randomized (level I) studies, 1 level II study, 8 level III studies, and 19 level IV studies. Meta-analysis of the comparative studies demonstrated a higher rate of revision surgery with keeled fixations compared with pegged fixations (odds ratio, 6.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-28.1; P = .02). No significant difference was found with respect to functional outcomes, such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean difference, 9.54; 95% CI, –8.25 to 27.34; P = .29) and Constant score (mean difference, 5.31; 95% CI, –12.28 to 22.89; P = .55), as well as radiolucency rates (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 0.56−6.39; P = .30).

Conclusion

Pegged glenoid fixation may result in a decreased risk of revision TSAs, but no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes have been identified to date.

Establishing maximal medical improvement after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

As a heightened emphasis continues to be placed on value-based health care, quality outcomes following orthopedic procedures must be properly defined. With knowledge of the time to maximal medical improvement following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), physician resources can be justly allocated to optimize value in ambulatory orthopedic care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies reporting sequential follow-up at several time points, up to a minimum of 2 years after TSA. Assessment for clinically significant improvements between time intervals was made by using the minimal clinically important difference specific to each patient-reported outcome measure.

RESULTS

We identified 13 studies that fit the criteria to be included in this review, amounting to 984 patients who underwent TSA. Clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcome scores were appreciated up to 1 year following TSA, but no further clinical significance was seen from 1 year to 2 years. Objective physical examination measurements followed a similar trend, with clinically significant improvements in abduction occurring up to 1 year postoperatively. For both the subjective and objective outcomes, the majority of improvements occurred in the first 3 months after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Following TSA, clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical measurements are seen up to 1 year postoperatively but not beyond this time. This result is important for counseling patients and modifying their expectations prior to surgery as well as for establishing a time frame for maximized outcome evaluation to define the value received from TSA.