This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the exams for this article: Shoulder/Elbow Test 13: Fall 2005 CME 3: July, August, September 2005 [Supplementary Material] Letters to the Editor: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bryant, D. Articles by Kirkley, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bryant, D. Articles by Kirkley, A. Social Bookmarking             What's this?

A Comparison of Pain, Strength, Range of Motion, and Functional Outcomes After Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

¹ Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton Health Sciences Center, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. E-mail address for D. Bryant: jackowdm{at}mcmaster.ca. E-mail address for G. Guyatt: guyatt{at}mcmaster.ca
² Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, 3M Center, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada. E-mail address: rlitchf{at}uwo.ca
³ Hand and Upper Limb Unit, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia. E-mail address: michael.sandow{at}adelaide.edu.au
⁴ Fondren Orthopedic Group, Texas Orthopedic Hospital, 7401 South Main Street, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail address: gmg{at}fondren.com
⁵ Deceased

Investigation performed at the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Methods: We conducted an electronic search for relevant studies published in any language from 1966 to 2004, a manual search of the proceedings from five major orthopaedic meetings from 1995 to 2003, and a review of the reference lists from potentially relevant studies. Four randomized clinical trials, with similar eligibility criteria and surgical techniques, that compared hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder were found to be eligible. Authors from three of the four studies provided original patient data. Analysis of covariance focused on the two-year outcome and included a comparison of the aggregate University of California at Los Angeles shoulder score, four University of California at Los Angeles domain scores, and range of motion.

Results: A total of 112 patients (fifty managed with hemiarthroplasty and sixty-two managed with total shoulder arthroplasty), who had a mean age of sixty-eight years, were included in this analysis. A significant moderate effect was detected in the function domain of the University of California at Los Angeles shoulder score (p < 0.001) in favor of total shoulder arthroplasty (mean [and standard deviation], 8.1 ± 0.3) compared with hemiarthroplasty (mean, 6.6 ± 0.3). A significant difference in the pain score was found in favor of the total shoulder arthroplasty group (p < 0.0001). However, the large degree of heterogeneity (p = 0.006, I² = 80.2%) among the studies decreased our confidence that total shoulder arthroplasty provides a true, consistent benefit with regard to pain. There was a significant difference in the overall change in forward elevation of 13° (95% confidence interval, 0.5° to 26°) in favor of the total shoulder arthroplasty group (p = 0.008).

Conclusions: At a minimum of two years of follow-up, total shoulder arthroplasty provided better functional outcome than hemiarthroplasty for patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. Since continuous degeneration of the glenoid after hemiarthroplasty or glenoid loosening after total shoulder arthroplasty may affect the eventual outcome, longer-term (five to ten-year) results are necessary to determine whether these findings remain consistent over time.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. I. Bohsali, M. A. Wirth, and C. A. Rockwood Jr. Complications of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2006; 88(10): 2279 - 2292. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. N. Matheson, J. M. Melhorn, T. G. Mayer, B. R. Theodore, and R. J. Gatchel Reliability of a Visual Analog Version of the QuickDASH J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2006; 88(8): 1782 - 1787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Boileau, R. J. Sinnerton, C. Chuinard, and G. Walch Arthroplasty of the shoulder J Bone Joint Surg Br, May 1, 2006; 88-B(5): 562 - 575. [Full Text] [PDF]

Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press (TM) assists in the publication of JBJS Online.
Copyright © 2005 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. Online ISSN: 1535-1386.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery®, JBJS®, JB&JS®, and eJBJS® are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.