The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2007;89:49-57.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01069
© 2007 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wirth, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rockwood, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wirth, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rockwood, C. A., Jr.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Compaction Bone-Grafting in Prosthetic Shoulder Arthroplasty

Michael A. Wirth, MD1, Moon-Sup Lim, MD2, Carleton Southworth, MS3, Rebecca Loredo, MD1, T. Kenneth Kaar, MB, MD, FRCSI, FRCS(Orth)4 and Charles A. Rockwood, Jr., MD1

1 University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78284-7774. E-mail address for M.A. Wirth: wirth{at}uthscsa.edu
2 Wallace Memorial Baptist Hospital, 374-75, Namsan-dong, Keumjeonggu, Pusan 609-340, Republic of Korea
3 DePuy Orthopaedics, 700 Orthopaedic Drive, Warsaw, IN 46581-0988
4 Private Rooms, Ground Floor, Hospital Block, Merlin Park Regional Hospital, Galway, Ireland

Investigation performed at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

Disclosure: The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. M.A. Wirth and C.A. Rockwood Jr. received honoraria/royalties from DePuy, Johnson and Johnson. 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.

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

NOTE: The authors thank Andrea Hicks for her assistance in the preparation of this work.

Background: Compaction bone-grafting has been suggested as a means of improving the stability of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty, but the clinical and radiographic results of the procedure have not been reported in the literature, to our knowledge. To address this deficit, we report on a series of shoulder arthroplasties performed with compaction bone-grafting to secure humeral component fixation. These prostheses were implanted in shoulders demonstrating a suboptimal interference fit of the humeral component.

Methods: Fifty-eight shoulders in fifty-three patients were treated with prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty that included compaction bone-grafting. Clinical assessments were performed at regular intervals with use of visual analog scales for pain, shoulder comfort and function, and overall quality of life, and with use of patient self-assessments including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score and the validated Simple Shoulder Test. A detailed radiographic analysis was performed by three raters to determine whether radiolucent lines were present immediately postoperatively and at a later follow-up interval. The humeral tilt angle was determined by measuring the angle between the humeral axis and the component. Subsidence was also evaluated. The mean of the raters' measurements was used in the analysis.

Results: The mean duration of follow-up was sixty-nine months (range, twenty-six to 148 months). No loose stems were observed, and no humeral component was revised. At the time of follow-up, there was significant improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test scores and all visual analog scores (p < 0.0001 in each instance). Thirty-four stems had no radiolucent line at the time of follow-up, and the mean maximum thickness of the lucent lines was 0.21 mm in the entire group of fifty-eight shoulders. Most lucent lines occurred near the distal stem tip. The mean tilt of the valgus and varus humeral components was 2.2° and 2.6°, respectively, on the immediate postoperative radiographs. No humeral component shifted from varus to valgus or vice versa. The duration of follow-up was not correlated with the maximum thickness of the humeral component lucency, and the presence or absence of a prosthetic glenoid was also unrelated to the maximum thickness of the lucency.

Conclusions: Compaction bone-grafting in shoulder arthroplasty can yield stable and durable fixation of the humeral component, as seen clinically and radiographically, without use of cement. Our findings provide evidence that compaction bone-grafting in shoulder arthroplasty is an option to ensure intermediate-term fixation (at a mean of five years) of humeral components that have a suboptimal fit.

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


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. D. Saltzman, D. M. Mercer, W. J. Warme, A. L. Bertelsen, and F. A. Matsen III
Comparison of Patients Undergoing Primary Shoulder Arthroplasty Before and After the Age of Fifty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2010; 92(1): 42 - 47.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. A. Wirth
Humeral Head Arthroplasty and Meniscal Allograft Resurfacing of the Glenoid
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2009; 91(5): 1109 - 1119.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]