header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Shoulder & Elbow

Outcome, revision rate and indication for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder

837 operations reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry

Download PDF


In this study, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes, the rate of revision and the indications for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with osteoarthritis.

All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR), between January 2006 and December 2010 were included. There were 772 patients (837 arthroplasties) in the study. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 12 months (10 to 14) post-operatively. The rates of revision were calculated from the revisions reported to the DSR up to December 2011 and by checking deaths with the Danish National Register of Persons.

A complete questionnaire was returned by 688 patients (82.2%). The mean WOOS was 67 (0 to 100). A total of 63 hemiarthroplasties (7.5%) required revision; the cumulative five-year rate of revision was 9.9%. Patients aged < 55 years had a statistically significant inferior WOOS score, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, compared with older patients (mean difference 14.2 (8.8; 95% CI 19.6; p < 0.001), but with no increased risk of revision. There was no significant difference in the mean WOOS or the risk of revision between designs of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:519–25.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr J. V. Rasmussen; e-mail:

For access options please click here