Advertisement

Protesi di rivestimento e stemless in chirurgia della spalla. Indicazioni, limiti e prospettive

  • A. BoveEmail author
  • A. Cozzolino
  • A. Soldati
  • G. Matino
  • N. Del Regno
Aggiornamenti
  • 8 Downloads

Resurfacing and stemless arthroplasty in shoulder surgery. Indications, limits and perspectives

Abstract

Small implants in shoulder replacement surgery represent a viable alternative to traditional surgery in specific conditions. Resurfacing and stemless implants have been introduced with the goal of preserving bone, reduce the risk of humeral periprosthetic fractures and simplify revision procedures. Clinical studies show very good clinical results and low complication rates in selected patients when correctly implanted. The use of small implants in shoulder replacement surgery appears to be a viable option for shoulder replacement, especially in young patients, even though future studies are required to assess the long-term outcomes.

Notes

Conflitto di interesse

Gli autori A. Bove, A. Cozzolino, A. Soldati, G. Matino e N. Del Regno dichiarano di non avere alcun conflitto di interesse.

Consenso informato e conformità agli standard etici

Tutte le procedure descritte nello studio e che hanno coinvolto esseri umani sono state attuate in conformità alle norme etiche stabilite dalla dichiarazione di Helsinki del 1975 e successive modifiche. Il consenso informato è stato ottenuto da tutti i pazienti inclusi nello studio.

Human and Animal Rights

L’articolo non contiene alcuno studio eseguito su esseri umani e su animali da parte degli autori.

Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Torre M (2016) Registro italiano artroprotesi: Report 2016, 101° Congresso SIOT, Torino 28–31 Ottobre 2016 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AAVV (2017) RIAP. Potenziare la qualità dei dati per migliorare la sicurezza dei pazienti. Quarto Report 2017. Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore, Roma Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr (1996) Complications of total shoulder replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:603–616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Rispoli DM, Cofield RH (2009) Periprosthetic humeral fractures during shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 91:594–603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr (2006) Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 88(10):2279–2292 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C (2006) Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elb Surg 15:19–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deshmuk AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS (2005) Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome and quality of life. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:471–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF (2011) Factors predicting complications rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20:557–563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar S, Sperling JW, Haidukewych GH, Cofield RH (2004) Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 86:680–689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM (2004) Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemi arthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13:604–613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J et al. (2010) Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(1):143–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salesky MA, Grace TR, Feeley BT et al. (2018) Effects of cemented versus press-fit primary humeral stem fixation in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27(5):801–807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mackenzie DB (1993) The antero-superior exposure for total shoulder replacement. Orthop Traumatol 2:71–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson M, Scott Paxton E, Green A (2015) Shoulder arthroplasty in young (<50 years old) patients: review of current concepts. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(2):317–325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Churchill RS (2014) Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current status. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23:1409–1414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berth A, Marz V, Wissel H et al. (2016) SPECT/CT demonstrates the osseointegrative response of a stemless shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25(4):e96–e103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Copeland S (2006) The continuing development of shoulder replacement: “reaching the surface”. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 88:900–905 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA (2005) Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:186–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Habermeyer P, Lichtenberg S, Tauber M, Magosch P (2015) Midterm results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(9):1463–1472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Walch G (2013) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 95(14):1297–1304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walch G, Moraga C, Young A, Castellanos-Rosas J (2012) Results of anatomic nonconstrained prosthesis in primary osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elb Surg 21(11):1526–1533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levy O, Copeland SA (2001) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5 to 10-year results with the Copeland Mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Jt Surg, Br Vol 83:213–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Levy O, Copeland SA (2004) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13:266–271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomas SR, Wilson AJ, Chambler A et al. (2005) Outcome of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:485–491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA (2005) Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:186–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lebon J, Delclaux S, Bonnevialle N et al. (French Society for Shoulder, Elbow (SOFEC)) (2014) Stemmed hemiarthroplasty versus resurfacing in primary shoulder osteoarthritis: a single-center retrospective series of 78 patients. Orthop Traumatol, Surg Res 100(6 Suppl):S327–S332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levy O, Tsvieli O, Merchant J et al. (2015) Surface replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than fifty years: results after a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(7):1049–1060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verstraelen FU, Horta LA, Schotanus MG et al. (2018) Clinical and radiological results 7 years after Copeland shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: an independent multicentre retrospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28(1):15–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Al-Hamdani A, Brorson S (2016) Outcome of revision shoulder arthroplasty after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 98(19):1631–1637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jaiswal A, Malhotra A, Hay S, Kelly CP (2019) Revision shoulder arthroplasty for failed surface replacement hemiarthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 103(1):69–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buchner M, Eschbach N, Loew M (2008) Comparison of the short-term functional results after replacement and total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a matched-pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:347–354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mullett H, Levy O, Raj D et al. (2007) Copeland surface replacement of the shoulder: results of an hydroxyapatite-coated cementless implant in patients over 80 years of age. J Bone Jt Surg, Br Vol 89:1466–1469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS (2008) Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 90:110–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Churchill RS, Athwal GS (2016) Stemless shoulder arthroplasty-current results and designs. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:10–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huguet D, DeClercq G, Rio B et al. (TESS Group) (2010) Results of anew stemless shoulder prosthesis: radiologic proof of maintained fixation and stability after a minimum of three years’ follow up. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(6):847–852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hawi N, Magosch P, Tauber M et al. (2017) Nine-year outcome after anatomic stemless shoulder prosthesis: clinical and radiological results. J Shoulder Elb Surg 9:1609–1615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berth A, Pap G (2013) Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis. J Orthop Traumatol 14(1):31–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Habermeyer P, Lichtenberg S, Tauber M, Magosch P (2015) Midterm results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(9):1463–1472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krukenberg MJ, Bartsch S et al. (2018) Sidus Stem-Free Shoulder System for primary osteoarthritis: short-term results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27(8):1483–1490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ballas R, Beguin L (2013) Results of a stemless reverse shoulder prosthesis at more than 58 months mean without loosening. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22(9):e1–e6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Teissier P, Teissier J, Kouyoumdjian P, Asencio G (2015) The TESS reverse shoulder arthroplasty without a stem in the treatment of cuff-deficient shoulder conditions: clinical and radiological results. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(1):45–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kadum B, Hassany H, Wadsten M et al. (2016) Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses. Int Orthop 40(4):715–718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Boileau P, Trojani C, Walch G et al. (2001) Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg 10(4):299–308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Athwal GS (2016) Spare the canal: stemless shoulder arthroplasty in finally here: commentary on an article by R. Sean Churchill, MD, et al: “Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Simplicity canal-sparing shoulder arthroplasty system. A prospective two-year multicenter study”. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 98(7):e28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hawi N, Tauber M, Messina MJ et al. (2016) Anatomic stemless shoulder arthroplasty and related outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17(1):376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana Ortopedici Traumatologi Ospedalieri d’Italia 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Bove
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Cozzolino
    • 1
  • A. Soldati
    • 2
  • G. Matino
    • 1
  • N. Del Regno
    • 1
  1. 1.UOC di Ortopedia e TraumatologiaNapoliItalia
  2. 2.UOC di Chirurgia della ManoNapoliItalia

Personalised recommendations