Dataset Information

Bone grafting severe glenoid defects in revision shoulder arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT: UNLABELLED: During revision total shoulder arthroplasty, bone grafting severe glenoid defects without concomitant reinsertion of a glenoid prosthesis may be the only viable reconstructive option. However, the fate of these grafts is unknown. We questioned the durability and subsidence of the graft and the associated clinical outcomes in patients who have this procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 11 patients with severe glenoid deficiencies from aseptic loosening of a glenoid component who underwent conversion of a total shoulder arthroplasty to a humeral head replacement and glenoid bone grafting. Large cavitary defects were grafted with either allograft cancellous chips or bulk structural allograft, depending on the presence or absence of glenoid vault wall defects, without prosthetic glenoid resurfacing. Clinical outcomes (Penn Shoulder Score, maximum 100 points) improved from 23 to 57 at a minimum 2-year followup (mean, 38 months; range, 24-73 months). However, we observed substantial graft subsidence in all patients, with eight of 11 patients having subsidence greater than 5 mm; the magnitude of graft resorption did not correlate with clinical outcome scores. Greater subsidence was seen with structural than cancellous chip allografts. Bone grafting large glenoid defects during revision shoulder arthroplasty can improve clinical outcome scores, but the substantial resorption of the graft material remains a concern. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Prognostic study.

SUBMITTER: Scalise JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2505297 | biostudies-other | 2008 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAseptic loosening of glenoid implants is the primary revision cause in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). While supported by biomechanical studies, the impact of glenoid bone quality, more specifically bone mineral density (BMD), on aseptic glenoid loosening remains unclear. We hypothesized that lower preoperative glenoid BMD was associated with aseptic glenoid implant loosening in aTSA.MethodsWe retrospectively included 93 patients (69 females and 24 males; mean age, 69.2 years) who underwent preoperative non-arthrographic shoulder computed tomography (CT) scans and aTSA between 2002 and 2014. Preoperative glenoid BMD (CT numbers in Hounsfield unit) was measured in 3D using a reliable semi-automated quantitative method, in the following six contiguous volumes of interest (VOI): cortical, subchondral cortical plate (SC), subchondral trabecular, and three successive adjacent layers of trabecular bone. Univariate Cox regression was used to estimate the impact of preoperative glenoid BMD on aseptic glenoid implant loosening. We further compared 26 aseptic glenoid loosening patients with 56 matched control patients.ResultsGlenoid implant survival rates were 89% (95% confidence interval CI, 81-96%) and 57% (41-74%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Hazard ratios for the different glenoid VOIs ranged between 0.998 and 1.004 (95% CI [0.996, 1.007], p≥0.121). Only the SC VOI showed significantly lower CTn in the loosening group (622±104 HU) compared with the control group (658±88 HU) (p=0.048), though with a medium effect size (d=0.42). There were no significant differences in preoperative glenoid BMD in any other VOI between patients from the loosening and control groups.ConclusionsAlthough the preoperative glenoid BMD was statistically significantly lower in the SC region of patients with aseptic glenoid implant loosening compared with controls, this single-VOI difference was only moderate. We are thus unable to prove that lower preoperative glenoid BMD is clearly associated with aseptic glenoid implant loosening in aTSA. However, due to its proven biomechanical role in glenoid implant survival, we recommend extending this study to larger CT datasets to further assess and better understand the impact of preoperative glenoid BMD on glenoid implant loosening/survival and aTSA outcome.

Project description:BackgroundThe treatment of patients with severe glenoid bone loss using reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is challenging because of the difficulty in obtaining glenoid fixation. The outcomes following primary RSA with structural bone-grafting for severe glenoid bone loss and the amount of native bone support necessary to achieve clinical improvement are unclear.MethodsWe reviewed functional outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and function, patient satisfaction, and range of motion) for 57 patients who were treated with a primary RSA and glenoid bone-grafting for severe glenoid bone loss. Three glenoids were classified as type A2; 2, as type B2; and 2, as type C, according to the Walch classification; 16 glenoids, as grade E1; and 19, as grade E3, according to the Sirveaux classification; 9 glenoids, as grade 3, according to the Levigne classification; and 6 were unable to be classified. For the 44 patients with adequate preoperative computed tomographic (CT) data and postoperative radiographs, we evaluated native bone contact under the glenoid baseplate by matching the projected shape of the implant and scapula from the postoperative radiographs with a generated 3-dimensional (3D) model of the preoperative scapula. We then analyzed functional outcomes in relation to native bone support of the baseplate.ResultsAt a mean of 46 months (minimum, 24 months), the patients demonstrated significant improvements in function, motion, and pain (change in the ASES total score = 38.6, change in SST = 5.4, change in forward elevation = 72.4°, change in abduction = 67.7°, change in external rotation = 24.3°, and change in VAS pain score = -4.6; p < 0.001 for all). On the basis of the generated 3D model, the baseplate contact to host bone was a mean (and standard deviation) of 17% ± 12% (range, 0% to 50%). There was no significant correlation between host bone coverage and change in the ASES score (p = 0.51) for the 44 patients included in this analysis. There were 4 major complications (7%) in the study group but no glenoid baseplate failures.ConclusionsGlenoid bone-grafting in a primary RSA in a shoulder with severe bone loss produces good functional outcomes that do not correlate with the degree of native bone contact under the baseplate. We had observed no glenoid component failures at the time of writing.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Several modern designs of metal-backed glenoids (MBG) have been devised to overcome flaws such as loosening and a high failure rate. This review aimed to compare rates of complications and revision surgeries between cemented polyethylene glenoid (PEG) and three examples of modern MBG designs. METHODS:Literature search was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms and natural keywords. A total of 1186 articles were screened. We descriptively analyzed numerical data between the groups and statistically analyzed the categorical data, such as the presence of radiolucent line, loosening, and revision surgery (failure). Articles were divided into three groups based on follow-up duration: <?36-month, 36-72-month, and?>?72-month subgroups. RESULTS:This study included 35 articles (3769 shoulders); 25 on cemented PEG and ten on the modern MBG. Mean age was 66.4 (21-93) and 66.5?years (31-88). The mean duration of follow-up was 73.1 (12-211) and 56.1?months (24-100). Overall, the rate of the radiolucent line was 354/1302 (27%) and 47/282 (17%), the loosening rate was 465/3185 (15%) and 22/449 (5%), and the failure rate was 189/3316 (6%) and 11/457 (2%), for PEG and MBG, respectively. The results of <?36-month and 36-72-month subgroups showed lower rates of radiolucency and loosening in the cemented PEG group, but there was no significant difference in failure rate (P?=?0.754 and 0.829, respectively). In the >?72-month subgroup, MBG was better in terms of loosening (P?<?0.001) and failure rates (P?=?0.006). CONCLUSIONS:The modern MBG component, especially TM glenoid, seems to be a promising alternative to cemented PEGs, based on subgroup revision rates according to the follow-up duration and overall results of ROM and clinical scores. All polyethylene glenoids tend to increase loosening and failure over time. Three modern MBG designs seem to have no difference in failure, at least in the <?36-month and 36-72-month subgroups compared to the cemented PEG. More long-term follow-up studies on modern MBG should be ultimately conducted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level IV, systematic review.

Project description:BackgroundAnatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) has been used to manage degenerative diseases such as primary osteoarthritis. An increase in the use of this procedure has led to several developments in humeral and glenoid components to improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of the newly-introduced convertible metal-backed glenoid components with cemented polyethylene glenoid components in aTSA, and to determine whether the new component would be comparable to a conventional one for reducing the burden of future revision or conversion surgeries.MethodsMedical records of fifty patients who underwent aTSA with at least two years of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Eighteen patients received convertible metal-backed glenoid components with vitamin E1-coated liner (MB group), while thirty-two patients received conventional cemented polyethylene glenoid components (PE group). Pre- and postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes (acromion-greater tuberosity angle [AGA] and humeral lateral offset [LO]) at final follow-up were assessed. Radiolucent lines (RLLs) and loosening around the humeral and glenoid components were also evaluated.ResultsClinical outcomes improved after surgery in both groups (all p < 0.001). The arc of rotation measured by AGA improved postoperatively in both groups (all p < 0.001), and AGA and LO were not different according to the type of glenoid components (all p > 0.05). Overall complication rates including RLLs of PE and MB groups were 43.8% (14/32) and 16.7% (3/18), respectively (p = 0.031). Although the PE group had more RLLs than did the MB group (p < 0.05), related symptoms and/or glenoid implant loosening were not observed in both groups. Subscapularis failure occurred in two patients in the PE group and in one in the MB group.ConclusionThe convertible metal-backed glenoid implant with vitamin E1-coated liner may be a good alternative for considering the potential for an easier conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Dataset Information

Bone grafting severe glenoid defects in revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets