Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(03): 480-487
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729589
Artigo Original

Correlation Between Implant Positioning and Functional Outcomes in Partial Shoulder Resurfacing

Article in several languages: português | English
Gilberto Daniel Luz
1   Centro de Cirurgia do Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Amanda S. Cavalcanti
2   Divisão de Pesquisa, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Júlio Ferreira
1   Centro de Cirurgia do Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Eduardo Godoy
1   Centro de Cirurgia do Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Marcus Vinicius Galvão Amaral
1   Centro de Cirurgia do Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Geraldo da R. Motta Filho 
1   Centro de Cirurgia do Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The present study aimed to correlate functional outcomes and implant positioning in a case series of partial shoulder resurfacing arthroplasties.

Methods A total of 25 patients were assessed for range of motion, functional outcome per the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score and radiographic findings. Pre- and postoperative data were compared. In addition, patients were grouped according to the cervical-diaphyseal angle (CDA) determined by an anteroposterior radiography and to the retroversion angle (RVA) determined by an axillary radiography. A CDA from 130° to 140° and a RVA from 20° to 40° consisted in ideal positioning (anatomical standard). Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Mann-Whitney test as appropriate.

Results The mean follow-up time was 48.3 months (12 to 67 months). The postoperative functional score (31.5) was higher than the preoperative score (15.5) (p < 0.001). In 6 patients, the implant was in anatomical positioning, while implant positioning was considered “nonstandard” in 19 subjects. Seven patients had a CDA < 130°, and 14 patients had a CDA ranging from 130° to 140°; in addition, the CDA was > 140° in 4 subjects. The RVA was up to 20° in 15 patients and ranged from 20° to 40° in 10 subjects. Using these criteria to group patients, the postoperative clinical-functional parameters were not statistically different from the preoperative findings (p > 0.05).

Conclusion Partial shoulder resurfacing results in significant postoperative functional recovery in patients with degenerative joint diseases. However, implant positioning assessed by CDA and RVA does not correlate with clinical-functional outcomes and, therefore, it is an inaccurate indicator of surgical success.

Level of Evidence IV; Case Series.

Keywords

arthroplasty, replacement, shoulder - shoulder joint - shoulder prosthesis - prosthesis design

Financial Support

The present study received no financial support from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources.


The present study was developed at the Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Center (CCOC, in the Portuguese acronym), Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia (INTO, in the Portuguese acronym), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 29 July 2020

Accepted: 08 January 2021

Article published online:
11 March 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Matsen 3rd FA, Rockwood Jr CA, Wirth MA, Lippitt SB, Parsons M. Glenohumeral arthritis and its management. In: Rockwood Jr CA, Matsen 3rd FA, Wirth MA, Lippitt SB. editors. The Shoulder. 3rd ed.. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2004: 879-1007
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Scalise JJ, Miniaci A, Iannotti JP. Resurfacing Arthroplasty of the Humerus: Indications, Surgical Technique, and Clinical Results. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 8 (03) 152-160
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (01) 110-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Copeland SA. Cementless total shoulder replacement. In: Post M, Morrey BF, Hawkins RJ. Surgery of the Shoulder. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1990: 289-293
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA. Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14 (02) 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Demographics of Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty;. 2019 . (Supplementary report 2019). Disponível em: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2019/supplementary
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17 (02) 355-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 AAOS. Joint Motion: Method of measuring and recording. Chicago: American Academy of Orthopedics; 1965
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Friedman RJ, Eichinger J, Schoch B. et al. Preoperative parameters that predict postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and range of motion with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Open Access 2019; 3 (04) 266-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Deladerrière JY, Szymanski C, Vervoort T, Budzik JF, Maynou C. Geometrical analysis results of 42 resurfacing shoulder prostheses: A CT scan study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98 (05) 520-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rydholm U, Sjögren J. Surface replacement of the humeral head in the rheumatoid shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1993; 2 (06) 286-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hammond G, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic humeral head resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty in functional glenohumeral positions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (01) 68-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pearl ML. Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14 (1 Suppl S): 99S-104S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brasil Filho R, Ribeiro FR, Tenor Filho AC. Artrose glenoumeral do paciente jovem – artroplastia de superfície. In: Reginaldo SS, Guerra IP, Miyazaki AN. editores. Ombro e Cotovelo. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier; 2013: 215-223
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5- to 10-year results with the Copeland mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83 (02) 213-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood Jr CA. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (10) 2279-2292
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Ohl X, Nérot C, Saddiki R, Dehoux E. Shoulder hemi arthroplasty radiological and clinical outcomes at more than two years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96 (03) 208-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Buchner M, Eschbach N, Loew M. Comparison of the short-term functional results after surface replacement and total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a matched-pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128 (04) 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Burgess DL, McGrath MS, Bonutti PM, Marker DR, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Shoulder resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (05) 1228-1238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Williams Jr GR, Wong KL, Pepe MD. et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 10 (05) 399-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Widnall JC, Dheerendra SK, Macfarlane RJ, Waseem M. The use of shoulder hemiarthroplasty and humeral head resurfacing: a review of current concepts. Open Orthop J 2013; 7: 334-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Coutié AS, Mansat P. Conséquences géométriques des prothèses de resurfaçage de l'épaule. Le resurfaçage de l'épaule. Mont-pellier: Sauramps medical; 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Geervliet PC, Willems JH, Sierevelt IN, Visser CPJ, van Noort A. Overstuffing in resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a potential risk for failure. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar