The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:110-117.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01552
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activity for this article:
 Shoulder/Elbow Test 23: Spring 2008 (publication date May 15, 2008; expirat...
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 arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bailie, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Ellenbecker, T. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bailie, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Ellenbecker, T. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Cementless Humeral Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Active Patients Less Than Fifty-five Years of Age

David S. Bailie, MD1, Paulo J. Llinas, MD2 and Todd S. Ellenbecker, DPT, MS, SCS, OCS, CSCS3

1 The Orthopedic Clinic Association, 9377 East Bell Road, Suite 231, Scottsdale, AZ 85260. E-mail address: david.bailie{at}dcranch.com
2 Fundacion Clinica Valle del Lili, Carrera 98 No. 18-49, P.O. Box 331 9090, Cali, Colombia. E-mail address: pllinas{at}fcvl.org
3 Physiotherapy Associates, Scottsdale Sports Clinic, 9917 North 95th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85258. E-mail address: ellenbeckerpt{at}cox.net

Investigation performed at The Orthopedic Clinic Association, Scottsdale, Arizona

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. One or more of the authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, received, in any one year, payments or other benefits (consulting fees associated with course instruction) of less than $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Biomet Orthopedics). No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

A video supplement to this article will be available from the Video Journal of Orthopaedics. A video clip will be available at the JBJS web site, www.jbjs.org. The Video Journal of Orthopaedics can be contacted at (805) 962-3410, web site: www.vjortho.com.

Background: Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty is a bone-conserving arthroplasty option for patients with glenohumeral arthritis. It has been successful in the older patient population. However, data regarding the results of arthroplasty in younger, more active patients are lacking. We report the two-year results of this procedure in active patients who were less than fifty-five years of age.

Methods: We reviewed prospectively collected clinical data on a series of thirty-six patients under fifty-five years of age with end-stage glenohumeral arthrosis, but without osteonecrosis, who had undergone a cementless humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. All patients were followed for a minimum of two years. We assessed pain, function, and patient satisfaction and documented all complications. Radiographs were evaluated for implant loosening.

Results: The thirty-six patients had a mean age of 42.3 years and were followed for a mean of 38.1 months. Scores measured with a visual analog pain scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scale, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scale all improved significantly from preoperatively to two years postoperatively (p < 0.001). Complications included one traumatic subscapularis rupture at six weeks, three cases of arthrofibrosis, and one deep hematoma. No obvious radiographic evidence of loosening was noted at the time of the latest follow-up. One shoulder was converted to a stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty at twenty-four months because of pain, but the implant was not loose at the revision. The remaining thirty-five patients were satisfied with the outcome at the time of the latest follow-up and had returned to their desired activity.

Conclusions: Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty is a viable treatment option for younger, active patients. Early results indicate that the desired function and pain relief can be expected. Implant loosening and glenoid wear do not appear to be concerns in the short term despite the high activity levels of many patients. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine if these results persist.

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 Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
J. M. Wiater and M. H. Fabing
Shoulder Arthroplasty: Prosthetic Options and Indications
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., July 1, 2009; 17(7): 415 - 425.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. L. Burgess, M. S. McGrath, P. M. Bonutti, D. R. Marker, R. E. Delanois, and M. A. Mont
Shoulder Resurfacing
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2009; 91(5): 1228 - 1238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
P. Raiss, P. Kasten, F. Baumann, M. Moser, M. Rickert, and M. Loew
Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Humeral Head with Cementless Surface Replacement Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., February 1, 2009; 91(2): 340 - 349.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]