Functional midterm follow-up comparison of stemless total shoulder prostheses versus conventional stemmed anatomic shoulder prostheses using a 3D-motion-analysis

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the functional midterm outcome of stemless shoulder prostheses with standard anatomical stemmed shoulder prostheses and to show that the STEMLESS results are comparable to the STEMMED with respect to active maximum range of shoulder motion (ROM) and Constant score (CS). Methods: Seventeen patients underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in 25 shoulder joints. Stemless TSA was performed in 12 shoulder joints (group STEMLESS), third-generation stemmed TSA in 13 shoulder joints (group STEMMED). Functional results were documented using the CS. 3D-motion-analysis using the Heidelberg upper extremity model (HUX) was conducted to measure active maximum (ROM). Results: The group STEMLESS achieved a CS of 67.9 (SD 12.0) points and the group STEMMED of 70.2 (SD 5.8 points) without significant difference between the groups (p = 0.925). The maximum ROM of the group STEMLESS, ascertained by 3-D-motion-analysis, was in forward flexion 125.5° (SD 17.2°), in extension 49.4° (SD 13.8°), in abduction 126.2° (SD 28.5°) and in external rotation 40.3° (SD 13.9°). The maximum ROM of the group STEMMED, also ascertained by 3-D-motion analysis, was in forward flexion 135.0° (SD 16.8°), in extension 47.2° (SD 11.5°), in abduction 136.3° (SD 24.2°) and in external rotation 40.1° (SD 12.2°). The maximum ROM of the STEMLESS group was lower in forward flexion and abduction, higher in extension and almost identical in external rotation. But there was no significant difference (forward flexion p = 0.174, extension p = 0.470, abduction p = 0.345, external rotation p = 0.978). Conclusion: Both types of shoulder prostheses achieve a similar and good active ROM and similar results in CS. Trial registration: DRKS00013166, retrospectively registered, 11.10.201

Are there differences between stemless and conventional stemmed shoulder prostheses in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis?

Background: Conventional stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses are widely used in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The stemless shoulder prosthesis, in contrast, is a new concept, and fewer outcome studies are available. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate the early functional outcome and postoperative proprioception of a stemless prosthesis in comparison with a standard stemmed anatomic shoulder prosthesis. Methods: Twelve patients (mean age 68.3 years [SD ± 5.4]; 5 female, 7 male) with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis of the shoulder were enrolled, who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a stemless total shoulder prosthesis, Total Evolution Shoulder System (TESS®; Biomed, France). The control group consisted of twelve (age and gender matched) patients (mean age 67.8 years; [SD ± 7.1]; 9 female, 3 male), getting a TSA with a standard anatomic stemmed prosthesis, Aequalis® Shoulder (Tournier, Lyon, France). Patients were examined the day before and six months after surgery. The pre- and postoperative Constant Score (CS) was evaluated and proprioception was measured in a 3D video motion analysis study using an active angle-reproduction (AAR) test. Results: Comparing the postoperative CS, there was no significant difference between the groups treated with the TESS® prosthesis (48.0 ± 13.8 points) and the Aequalis® prosthesis (49.3 ± 8.6 points; p = 0.792). There was no significant difference in postoperative proprioception between the TESS® group (7.2° [SD ± 2.8]) and the Aequalis® group(8.7° [SD ± 2.7]; p = 0.196), either. Comparison of in the results of CS and AAR test pre- and postoperatively showed no significant differences between the groups. Discussion: In patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with TSA, the functional and the proprioceptive outcome is comparable between a stemless and a standard stemmed anatomic shoulder prosthesis at early followup. Conclusion: Further follow-up is necessary regarding the long-term performance of this prosthesis. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials DRKS 00007528. Registered 17 November 201

Femoral revision in total hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular stem: clinical and radiological results with a 8-year follow-up

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Introduction</jats:title> <jats:p>Modular femoral components allow for patient-specific restoration of hip joint geometry and the reconstruction of extensive bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, potential problems of modular implants such as taper corrosion and the risk of implant fracture continue to be of concern. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of a cementless modular revision stem following revision surgery due to aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture and to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in these patients at mid-term follow-up.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Materials and methods</jats:title> <jats:p>In this study, a consecutive cohort of 75 patients who underwent primary revision THA at our institution using a modular cementless stem design (MRP-TITAN stem) was retrospectively evaluated at a mean follow-up of 7.7 years. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analyses were performed with revision of the femoral component for any reason as the end point. The Harris-Hip Score, the UCLA Activity Score, the Forgotten Joint Score and the SF-12 Score were used for clinical assessment. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare pre- and postoperative clinical scores.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Overall stem survival with the endpoint stem re-revision for any reason was 85.4% at a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (range 2.4–14 years). Stem survival was 89.5% in the aseptic loosening group and 78.3% in the periprosthetic fracture group with no statistically significant difference between both groups (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.107). One patient had to be revised due to taper fracture. PROMs improved significantly up to the latest follow-up, and radiographic evaluation showed full osseointegration of all stems in this cohort.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>Revision THA using a modular cementless titanium revision stem demonstrated adequate clinical and radiological results at mid- to long-term follow-up in this cohort. Cementless revision stems are a useful treatment option to restore the anatomy, especially in deformed hips and in complex revision hip arthroplasty. However, there are some significant disadvantages related to an increased risk of mechanical failure such as corrosion/fretting damage and implant fracture. Future high-quality prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm the supposed advantages.</jats:p> </jats:sec&gt