Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty Research Articles

TITLE: Comparison Of Pyrolytic Carbon Humeral Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty With Best In Class Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Prosthesis In Young Patients

TITLE: Comparison Of Pyrolytic Carbon Humeral Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty With Best In Class Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Prosthesis In Young Patients

Prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty in patients 40 years or younger: outcomes stratified by diagnosis and surgery.

The outcomes of patients 50-55 years old or younger undergoing prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty (PSA) may not generalize to younger patients. We report outcomes following PSA in a consecutive series of patients 40 years or younger. We hypothesize that total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) provides better outcome and durability than resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA). Patients were stratified by diagnosis and surgical procedure performed, RHA or TSA. Active range of motion and self-assessed outcome were evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up. Twenty-nine consecutive PSAs were identified in 26 patients, comprising 9 TSAs and 20 RHAs, with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Twelve PSAs were performed for chondrolysis. Mean active forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation improved significantly (p<0.001 for all). Mean pain score improved from 6.3 to 2.1, Simple Shoulder Test from 4.0 to 9.0, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score from 38 to 75 (p<0.001 for all). Patients undergoing RHA and TSA had similar outcomes; but three RHAs required revision, two of these within 4 years of implantation. Four of five patients undergoing revision during the study period had an original diagnosis of chondrolysis. PSA in young patients provides substantial improvement in active range of motion and patient reported outcomes irrespective of diagnosis and glenoid management. However, patients undergoing RHA, especially for chondrolysis, frequently require subsequent revision surgery, so that RHA should be considered with caution in young patients and only after shared decision-making and counsel on the risk of early revision to TSA.

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.

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 invitro. This study aimed to compare the survivorship of shoulder hemi-resurfacing using pyrocarbon with shoulder hemi-resurfacing and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads. 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. 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). 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.

Kinematic 3-D motion analysis of shoulder resurfacing hemiarthroplasty – An objective assessment method

Shoulder replacement is indicated in the treatment of pain due to osteoarthritis. Few studies have objectively assessed range of motion (RoM) gains at different post-operative time points. This is a prospective 3D motion analysis study to objectively quantify RoM changes at multiple time points following shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty (SRA) for primary gleno-humeral osteoarthritis, comparing it with clinically measured RoM. Clinical assessment, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Constant-Morley (CS) and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) were recorded. Motion analysis was performed for RoM and three activities of daily living tasks (ADL), pre-operatively and post-operatively at 4 and 12 months. Nineteen shoulders in fifteen patients were included. The mean age was 72 years (range 52–84). There were significant improvements in external and internal rotation, ability to place the hand behind the head and reach the fifth lumbar vertebra, at 4 months on clinical examination and kinematic analysis with no further improvements at 12 months. There was significant improvement in abduction at 4 months with further improvement at 12 months, which was significantly more than noted on clinical assessment. In contrast, kinematic analysis showed a reduction in flexion between 4 and 12 months, while clinically there appeared to be an improvement between these time periods. This is the first study to prospectively utilise objective kinematic 3-D motion analysis in addition to clinical measurements and outcome scores, to investigate the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty at multiple time points after surgery, providing an understanding into the trends of change in these parameters.

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

BackgroundThough 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionThis 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.

Long-term results of shoulder resurfacing hemiarthroplasty: Poor functional outcomes in rotator cuff deficient patients

Background: Shoulder resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a bone-conserving procedure used in the treatment of multiple painful shoulder conditions. Previous studies have reported mixed results with some indicating that rotator cuff arthropathy leads to inferior clinical outcomes when compared to other preoperative diagnoses. We compared the medium- to long-term subjective and functional outcomes of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty performed for rotator cuff arthropathy versus other indications.Methods: Patients who underwent shoulder resurfacing hemiarthroplasty, with minimum two-year follow-up, were included for review. The primary outcome measure was the final postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, while secondary measures included final postoperative active forward elevation, revision arthroplasty, as well as the change in pre- and postoperative outcome scores and forward elevation.Results: Eighty-four shoulders in 77 patients were reviewed, including 39 shoulders with preoperative rotator cuff arthropathy. Mean follow-up time was 76.82 months (range 24 to 147 months). Improvements in subjective outcome scores and visual analog pain scores were observed with all preoperative diagnoses following surgery. There was no significant difference in final postoperative subjective scores when comparing patients with rotator cuff arthropathy and those with an intact rotator cuff (66.0 ± 22.8 vs. 74.2 ± 20.3, p = 0.09). Final postoperative active forward elevation was significantly worse in the rotator cuff arthropathy group compared to other diagnoses (119.1˚± 41.8˚ vs 136.9˚ ± 34.6˚, p = 0.040). Patients with rotator cuff arthropathy lost an average of 26.9˚ of forward elevation while those with an intact rotator cuff gained an average of 8.7˚ postoperatively (p = 0.001). Six shoulders from the rotator cuff arthropathy group were revised to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to two from all other groups (15.4% vs 4.4%, p = 0.183).Conclusion: Shoulder resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is effective in relieving pain and improving subjective outcome scores across all diagnoses but does not reliably restore or maintain function in rotator cuff deficient patients. In fact, patients with rotator cuff arthropathy lost a significant amount of range of motion after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. While patients predictably improve in terms of pain scores and subjective outcome scores, caution should be exercised in performing this procedure in patients with rotator cuff arthropathy, even those with preserved preoperative overhead active range of motion, due to potential loss of active range of motion after surgery.Level of evidence: Level III; Retrospective Comparative Study

The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry

The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) was established in 2004. The purpose of the registry is to monitor and improve the outcome of shoulder arthroplasty surgery in Denmark. The objective of this study was to describe the organization of the DSR and review published DSR papers with a special focus on patients with osteoarthritis. All Danish public and private hospitals report to the DSR. Since 2006, when reporting became mandatory, the completeness of reporting has been over 90% each year. Surgeons report patient and operative data electronically at the time of the operation. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index at 1 year is used as patient-reported outcome. A revision is defined as removal or exchange of any component or the addition of a glenoid component. The revision is linked to the primary procedure with use of a unique civil registration number, which is given to all Danish citizens at birth. The registry has published five papers focusing on patients with osteoarthritis. The WOOS score was significantly higher after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty. The WOOS score after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty varied and was often disappointing especially in young patients. The WOOS score after revision arthroplasty for failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was low and disappointing. The short- and mid-term survival rates of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty were high for both the stemmed and the stemless humeral components. The DSR has recorded significant changes in Danish surgeons’ approach to patients with osteoarthritis. Today, anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty with either a stemmed or a stemless humeral component is preferred in most cases.

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

BackgroundMedium-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. MethodsA 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. Results279 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. ConclusionCRHA 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 evidenceLevel III (retrospective comparative study)

Poor patient-reported outcome after shoulder replacement in young patients with cuff-tear arthropathy: a matched-pair analysis from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry

Background and purpose — Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the treatment of choice for cuff-tear arthropathy. There are, however, concerns about the longevity and the outcome of an eventual revision procedure. Thus, resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) with extended articular surface has been suggested for younger patients. We compared the patient-reported outcome of these arthroplasty designs for cuff-tear arthropathy.Patients and methods — We included patients operated on because of cuff-tear arthropathy and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2013. 117 RHA cases were matched by age and sex with 233 RSA controls. 34 of the RHAs were conventional and 67 were RHAs with extended articular surface. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) Index at 1 year was used as primary outcome. The score was converted to a percentage of a maximum score. Revision, defined as removal or exchange of any component or the addition of a glenoid component, was used as secondary outcome.Results — Median WOOS was 49 (30–81) for RHA and 77 (50–92) for RSA (p < 0.001). For patients younger than 65 years, median WOOS was 58 (44–80) after RHA, similar to the 54 after RSA (37–85). For patients older than 65 years, median WOOS was 48 (28–82) after RHA and 79 (55–92) after RSA (p < 0.001).Interpretation — In all patients RSA had a clinically and statistically better patient-reported outcome than RHA. However, in patients younger than 65 years the functional outcome was similar and poor for either arthroplasty type. The optimal treatment of CTA in young patients remains a challenge.

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

BackgroundIn a clinical setting, a visual evaluation of post-implant radiographs is often used to assess the restoration of glenohumeral joint anatomy after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and is a part of the decision-making process, in combination with other parameters, when evaluating patients with inferior clinical results. However, the reliability of this method of visual evaluation has not been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter- and intra-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing, implant positioning, and size following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty using plain standardized radiographs.MethodsSix experienced shoulder surgeons independently classified implant inclination, size of the implant and if the joint seemed overstuffed, in 219 cases of post-implant radiographs. All cases were classified twice 3 weeks apart. Only radiographs with an anterior-posterior projection with a freely visible joint space were used. Non-weighted Cohen’s kappa values were calculated for each coder pair and the mean used as an estimate of the overall inter-observer agreement.ResultsThe overall inter-observer agreement for implant size (kappa, 0.48 and 0.41) and inclination angle was moderate in both rounds (kappa, 0.46 and 0.44), but only a fair agreement was found concerning the evaluation for stuffing of the joint (kappa, 0.24 and 0.28). Intra-observer agreement for implant size and stuffing ranged from fair to substantial while the agreement for inclination was moderate to substantial.ConclusionsOur results indicate that a visual evaluation of plain radiographs may be inadequate to evaluate overstuffing, implant positioning, and size following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty using plain standardized radiographs. Future studies may contribute to elucidate whether reliability increases if consensus on clear definitions and standardized methods of evaluation is made.

Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

This study reports the outcome of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) in a cohort of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) affecting the shoulder joint METHODS: Fourteen uncemented RHA procedures were performed for 11 consecutive patients who required surgery because of JIA. Mean age at surgery was 36.4 years. Mean clinical follow-up was 10.4 years (range, 5.8-13.9 years). A significant humeral head defect (up to 40% surface area) was found in 5 shoulders and filled with autograft from the distal clavicle or femoral head allograft. At latest follow-up, no patient required revision. There was excellent relief from pain. The mean Oxford Shoulder Score and Constant-Murley Score improved significantly. No shoulder had a poor outcome, and 6 had a very good or excellent outcome. Worse outcome was associated with an intraoperative finding of significant humeral head erosion. Two shoulders required early arthroscopic subacromial decompression, but there were no other reoperations. There were no instances of radiographic implant loosening or proximal migration. Painless glenoid erosion was seen in 5 shoulders but was not associated with worse outcome. The midterm results of RHA for JIA are at least comparable to those for stemmed hemiarthroplasty, with the added benefit of bone conservation.

Total shoulder prosthesis with humeral resurfacing: Impact on lateral offset and short-term clinical consequences.

Reports of early glenoid wear after humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty have prompted the use, in combination with this procedure, of newly developed glenoid implants. This combination can increase global humeral offset. The objectives of this study were to assess changes in overall lateral offset and their potential short-term clinical consequences after combined humeral resurfacing and glenoid replacement. Combined humeral resurfacing and glenoid replacement induces a large increase in overall lateral offset, resulting in short-term clinical consequences. A single-centre prospective study was started in November 2011. Consecutive patients scheduled for total shoulder arthroplasty with humeral resurfacing were included. The primary outcome measure was the change in lateral offset between radiographs obtained pre-operatively and 3 months post-operatively. The functional outcome assessed using the Constant score was compared between the groups with a lateral offset change <10mm vs. ≥10mm. From November 2011 to November 2014, 35 total shoulder arthroplasties with humeral resurfacing were performed in 32 patients with a mean age of 72.1 years (range, 55-86 years). Mean follow-up was 20±6 months (range, 12-31 months). Overall lateral offset was significantly greater post-operatively than pre-operatively (14±6mm vs. 5±7mm, p<0.0001), the mean difference being 8mm (range, 2-20mm). Post-operative range of motion was better in the group with an overall lateral offset ≥10mm (p=0.0016). Combined humeral resurfacing and glenoid replacement markedly increases overall lateral offset. This increase is not associated with adverse effects on short-term function and may improve post-operative motion range. However, greater lateral offset elevates the loads on the glenoid implant, which may increase the risk of glenoid implant loosening and rotator cuff tearing. Close radiological monitoring is therefore imperative. IV, prospective cohort study.

Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis has higher survival rates than hemiarthroplasty: a Nordic registry-based study

To report the10-year survival rates of different shoulder arthroplasty types used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Data from 2004 to 2013 was prospectively collected by the national shoulder arthroplasty registers in Denmark, Norway and Sweden and merged into a harmonized dataset under the umbrella of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. The common dataset included data that all three registers could deliver and where consensus regarding definitions could be made. Revision was defined as removal or exchange of any component or the addition of a glenoid component. The cumulative survival rates at 10 years after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) (n=1,923), stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) (n=1,587) and anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) (n=2,340) were 0.85, 0.93 and 0.96 respectively (P<0.001, Log rank test). RHA (HR: 2.5; CI 1.9-3.4, P<0.001) and SHA (HR: 1.4; CI 1.0-2.0, P<0.04) had an increased risk of revision compared to TSA. Gender, age and period of surgery were included in the Cox regression model. For patients below 55 years, the 10-year cumulative survival rates were 0.75 (RHA, n=354), 0.81 (SHA, n=146), and 0.87 (TSA, n=201). Anatomical TSA had the highest implant-survival rate. Young patients had, independently of the arthroplasty type, lower implant-survival rates. The treatment of young patients with end-stage osteoarthritis remains a challenge.

Outcome of Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty After Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis.

Patients are often treated with a resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in the expectation that the bone-preserving design facilitates revision should the need for a revision arthroplasty arise. The aim of this study was to report the outcome of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis who underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. We reviewed all patients with osteoarthritis reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry from 2006 to 2013. There were 1,210 primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasties, of which 107 cases (9%) required a revision surgical procedure, defined as the removal or exchange of the humeral component or the addition of a glenoid component. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate outcome at 1 year. The median WOOS of revision arthroplasty after failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was 62 points (interquartile range, 40 to 88 points). Of the 80 cases that had follow-up, 33 (41%) had an unacceptable outcome, defined as a WOOS of ≤50 points. Of the 107 cases that required a revision surgical procedure, 11 arthroplasties (10%) required a further revision surgical procedure. The resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was revised to a stemmed hemiarthroplasty (n = 39), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 31), or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 30). In 7 cases, the revision arthroplasty design was unknown. The median WOOS of patients who underwent revision stemmed hemiarthroplasty (48 points) was significantly inferior (p = 0.002) to that of patients who underwent primary stemmed hemiarthroplasty (75 points); the median WOOS of patients who underwent revision anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (74 points) was also significantly inferior (p = 0.007) to that of patients who underwent primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (93 points). However, the median WOOS of patients who underwent revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (68 points) was not significantly different (p = 0.66) from that of patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (77 points) used in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The outcome of revision shoulder arthroplasty after failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was variable and, in many cases, disappointing. It is important that resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is used for the correct indications and with adequate technique and skill. When resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is used in the treatment of osteoarthritis, revision cannot be counted upon as a fallback. Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

(i) Surgical approaches for shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract Shoulder arthroplasty is most commonly performed via a deltopectoral (DP) or anterosuperior (AS) approach, and several modifications of each have been described. Both approaches can be used for resurfacing, stemless and stemmed hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This article aims to give a practical guide to performing both approaches, and a summary of the related evidence.

Resurfacing shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis

Background and purpose — There is no consensus on which type of shoulder prosthesis should be used in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We describe patients with RA who were treated with shoulder replacement, regarding patient-reported outcome, prosthesis survival, and causes of revision, and we compare outcome after resurfacing hemi-arthroplasty (RHA) and stemmed hemi-arthroplasty (SHA).Patients and methods — We used data from the national Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry and included patients with RA who underwent shoulder arthroplasty in Denmark between 2006 and 2010. Patient-reported outcome was obtained 1-year postoperatively using the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS), and rates of revision were calculated by checking revisions reported until December 2011. The patient-reported outcome of RHA was compared to that of SHA using regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex, and previous surgery.Results — During the study period, 167 patients underwent shoulder arthroplasty because of rheumatoid arthritis, 80 (48%) of whom received RHA and 34 (26%) of whom received SHA. 16 patients were treated with total stemmed shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and 24 were treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). 130 patients returned a completed questionnaire, and the total mean WOOS score was 63. The cumulative 5-year revision rate was 7%. Most revisions occurred after RHA, with a revision rate of 14%. Mean WOOS score was similar for RHA and for SHA.Interpretation — This study shows that shoulder arthroplasty, regardless of design, is a good option in terms of reducing pain and improving function in RA patients. The high revision rate in the RHA group suggests that other designs may offer better implant survival. However, this should be confirmed in larger studies.

Metallic resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint combined with first metatarsal osteotomy for the treatment of hallux rigidus with hallux valgus in China

Metallic resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint combined with first metatarsal osteotomy for the treatment of hallux rigidus with hallux valgus in China

Outcome and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis

This thesis includes four studies focusing on the functional outcome, shoulder-specific quality of life and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis without symptomatic rotator cuff pathology. The Danish version of WOOS, translated according to international standardized guidelines, had substantial psychometric properties comparable to the original version. It is recommendable to use WOOS in the evaluation of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with shoulder replacement. Data from DSR showed that the shoulder specific quality of life following total shoulder arthroplasty was superior to that of hemiarthroplasty (resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and stemmed hemiarthroplasty). The difference between stemmed hemiarthroplasty and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was small and did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. The revision rate following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was surprisingly high compared with previous reports but there were no statistical significant differences in revision rate between arthroplasty designs. The shoulder specific quality of life and revision rate in patients under the age of 55 was worrying. The use of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty has relied on the results from case series only. The efficacy in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis has been promising but the CMS found in the randomized clinical trial indicate that the functional outcome may be inferior to that of stemmed hemiarthroplasty and less favourable than previously reported. However, the limited number of patients may have influenced the results and a larger definitive RCT is needed.Shoulder replacement is relevant and effective in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis; however, resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was associated with a poorer outcome and a higher risk of revision than previously assumed especially in patients under the age of 55. Based on data from this thesis, and based on existing knowledge, it seems like total shoulder arthroplasty should be preferred in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Shoulder replacement is rarely indicated in younger patients where other treatment options (e.g., physiotherapy; intraarticular injections of hyaluronate; and joint preserving surgery) should be considered until the efficacy of shoulder replacement has been more thoroughly documented.

Outcome, revision rate and indication for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder

In this study, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes, the rate of revision and the indications for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with osteoarthritis. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR), between January 2006 and December 2010 were included. There were 772 patients (837 arthroplasties) in the study. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 12 months (10 to 14) post-operatively. The rates of revision were calculated from the revisions reported to the DSR up to December 2011 and by checking deaths with the Danish National Register of Persons. A complete questionnaire was returned by 688 patients (82.2%). The mean WOOS was 67 (0 to 100). A total of 63 hemiarthroplasties (7.5%) required revision; the cumulative five-year rate of revision was 9.9%. Patients aged < 55 years had a statistically significant inferior WOOS score, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, compared with older patients (mean difference 14.2 (8.8; 95% CI 19.6; p < 0.001), but with no increased risk of revision. There was no significant difference in the mean WOOS or the risk of revision between designs of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty.

Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis

Purpose — We used patient-reported outcome and risk of revision to compare hemiarthroplasty (HA) with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) with resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.Patients and methods — We included all patients reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) between January 2006 and December 2010. 1,209 arthroplasties in 1,109 patients were eligible. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS) was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 1 year postoperatively. For simplicity of presentation, the raw scores were converted to a percentage of the maximum score. Revision rates were calculated by checking reported revisions to the DSR until December 2011. WOOS and risk of revision were adjusted for age, sex, previous surgery, and type of osteoarthritis.Results — There were 113 TSAs and 1096 HAs (837 RHAs and 259 SHAs). Patients treated with TSA generally had a better WOOS, exceeding the predefined minimal clinically important difference, at 1 year (mean difference 10, p < 0.001). RHA had a better WOOS than SHA (mean difference 5, p = 0.02), but the difference did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. There were no statistically significant differences in revision rate or in adjusted risk of revision between any of the groups.Interpretation — Our results are in accordance with the results from other national shoulder registries and the results published in systematic reviews favoring TSA in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, this registry study had certain limitations and the results should be interpreted carefully.