Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2015

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

Zeitschrift:
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders > Ausgabe 1/2015
Autoren:
Michael W. Maier, Sarah Lauer, Matthias C. Klotz, Matthias Bülhoff, David Spranz, Felix Zeifang
Wichtige Hinweise

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. All authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

Authors’ contributions

MM made the concept and design, and performed the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data and wrote the manuscript. SL participated in data acquisition, interpretation of data, statistics and helped prepare the manuscript. MK made substantial contributions to data acquisition and interpretation from the institutional motion analysis laboratory. MB participated in data acquisition from the institutional motion analysis laboratory and statistics. DS participated in data acquisition, interpretation of data, and manuscript preparation. FZ performed the surgery, and participated in the interpretation of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Abstract

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 2014
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise