In the past century several shoulder reconstruction systems with different types of prostheses and fixation methods have been developed to improve shoulder arthroplasty, especially to cover a wide range of pathologies and revision situations. The aim of this prospective trial was to report clinical and radiological mid-term results of a stemless humeral head replacement with metaphyseal hollow screw fixation. A consecutive series of 147 shoulders in 138 patients (84 female, 54 male; mean age of 67 years, range 40–84) undergoing stemless humeral head arthroplasty were considered for this single-centre trial. We prospectively followed 120 shoulders (40 hemi- and 80 total-arthroplasties) for an average of five years or until a reoperation. Patient's clinical and functional outcome was evaluated according to the Constant score and active range of motions (ROM) was measured. Patient's satisfaction with the treatment was evaluated. Additionally, operating times and complications were recorded. Radiological assessment for radiolucencies or implant migration was performed. The mean Constant score significantly increased from 35 points preoperatively to 62 points at the last follow-up (p<0.001). All subcomponents (pain, daily activity, ROM, strength) of the Constant score were significantly (p<0.001) higher at follow-up. Active flexion improved from 90° to 150° (p<0.001), active abduction from 78° to 120° (p<0.001), and active external rotation from 20° to 40° (p<0.001) between preoperative and last clinical assessment. Furthermore, 54% of the patients were very satisfied, 34% satisfied, and 12% unsatisfied. Operating times of the new stemless prosthesis were significantly shorter compared to a stemmed prosthesis. Over the follow-up period, all humeral head components were radiological centred, changing radiolucencies were detected; however no implant loosening occurred. Revision surgery for implant loosening only occurred in the metal-backed glenoid component with hollow screw fixation; otherwise no complication due to implant loosening was detected. The promising five-year results suggest that the concept of this stemless humeral head replacement might be an expedient alternative to existing shoulder replacements. Anatomical cutting of the humeral head and hollow screw fixation allow a familiar access to the glenoid combined with a shaft independent, less complex bone-sparing surgery along with shorter operating times and favourable revision situation

Prosthetic replacement of the humeral head for fracture remains an operative challenge to even the most experienced orthopaedic surgeon. Although most fractures of the proximal humerus are minimally displaced and treated conservatively, more complex fractures require operative intervention. In this respect, the four-part proximal humerus fracture and fracture-dislocation have been difficult to evaluate and manage. Results from conservative treatment have been consistently unsatisfactory while results from surgery have been more variable with some series reporting satisfactory results. Treatment options for four-part fractures and fracturedislocations of the proximal humerus fractures include non-operative management, open reduction internal fixation, and humeral head replacement. Because of the poor results with non-operative, resection arthroplasty, and internal fixation, Neer in 1951 introduced prosthetic arthroplasty with tuberosity reconstruction for these complex fractures. Many reports in the literature have documented the successful results of this procedure. In our series of 65 shoulders there were 82% satisfactory results, 97% pain relief, and 85% good functional results. Therefore, prosthetic replacement of acute displaced fractures is technically demanding but offers a predictive result of a pain-free shoulder and functional motion through aggressive rehabilitation. Our goals in this video are to provide stepwise, comprehensive information on the techniques and guidelines for humeral head replacement in the treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures. Careful preoperative planning, patient evaluation, imaging, meticulous operative techniques, and a closely supervised rehabilitation program are necessary to produce a successful functional shoulder after prosthetic reconstruction

Various surgical treatment were reported on rheumatoid shoulder. However, there were no recommended surgeries in the Japanese 2. nd. basic published text of rheumatoid disease. We had performed total shoulder arthroplasty(TSA) and humeral head replacement (HHR) in patient with Rheumatoid shoulder from 1992. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of humeral head replacement, 2. nd. generation TSA and 3. rd. generation TSA in patients followed more than 5 years with rheumatoid shoulder. Material & Method. From 1992–2007, we performed shoulder arthroplasty in 42 shoulders in 40 patients. Six cases were not able to follow due to die and lost. All 36 shoulders in 34 patients could be followed with x-ray examinations more than 5 years. Averaged follow-up period was 8.6 years (range 5–14.5). HHR with intact cuff performed in 10 shoulders, 2. nd. generation TSA with intact cuff in 10, 3. rd. generation TSA in intact cuff in 10 and HHR with muscle tendon transfer in 6 shoulders. The shoulder score of Japanese Orthopaedic Association)JOA score. Modified Neer classification, ROM, lucent lines in X-ray and complications were investigated. Results. In JOA score, 3. rd. generation TSA revealed highest score (84 points). Also, in Modified Neer classification, excellent results were obtained 50% of cases in 3. rd. generation TSA. On the other hand, HHR with muscle tendon transfer group has no cases of excellent results. In flexion & external rotation, 3. rd. generation TSA had achieved satisfactory results. In X-ray, all glenoid component had a lucent line around the keel type glenoid in 2. nd. generation TSA. However, only 1.6 points in Lazarus claasification revealed in peg type component in 3. rd. generation TSA. No nerve injuries and instability were found after surgery. However, two infections and two glenoid resurfacing need after surgery. Discussion. In this mid-term results, 3. rd. generation type of TSA system could get favorable results in RA shoulders with intact cuff. However, the treatment for rheumatoid shoulder cases which has masssive rotator cuff defect is still remained as difficult problem

The October 2012 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: fast-absorbing suture anchors for use in shoulder labral tears; double-row rotator cuff repair; degenerate massive rotator cuff tears addressed with partial repair; open and arthroscopic stabilisation of Bankart lesions; predicting the risk of revision humeral head replacement; arthroscopic treatment for frozen shoulder; and long-term follow-up of the Bristow-Latarjet procedure

In recently, reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff deficient arthritis is widely used in the world. However, a high complication rate was reported and worried about long-term results after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. From 2001, we performed a novel strategy for these cases such as rotator cuff reconstruction w/ or w/o muscle transfer and a humeral head replacement with using smallest head to decrease joint volume. The aim of this study was to investigate with clinical outcomes after this surgery more than two years follow-up. Materials & methods. Fifty six shoulders underwent humeral head replacement (HHR) with or without tendon transfer for cuff tear arthropathy was able to follow-up more than two years. The mean age was 74 years (60 to 83 years). 42 cuff tear arthropathy, 6 RA, 5 re-tear after cuff repair with arthritis, and 1 arthritis after infection were included. Coracoacromial arch preserved Superior approach with preserving coracoacromial arch was used for replacement the humeral stem and head. Almost of the cases could be repaired with using a smallest head because of the height of humeral head and joint volume were decreased. However, when rotator cuff remained in irreparable condition, a latissimus dorsi tendon or a pectoralis major tendon from same shoulder was transferred for cuff reconstruction. The patients were divided by 2 groups; 36 shoulders of HHR without tendon transfer and 20 shoulders of HHR with tendon transfer. Each patient was evaluated with Japan Orthopaedic Association score (JOA score) and modified Neer's limited goals rating scale after a least 2 year of follow-up. Results. In all cases, preoperative severe pain was dramatically improved. JOA score improve from 40.2 preoperatively to 80.2 postoperatively. Twelve shoulders estimated as excellent in modified Neer's classification, 34 in satisfactory and 10 in unsatisfactory. Half of cases with RA were unsatisfactory results. Postoperative active flexion statistically improved compared to preoperative range of motion. Averaged postoperative flexion was 136 degrees (preop.;68.8) and postoperative external rotation was 28.6 degrees (preop.;13.2). However, there was no significant difference of external rotation in the HHR group between pre and postoperative evaluation. The radiographic evaluation showed four cases of glenoid erosion. One case had arthroscopic Suprascapular nerve release eight years after surgery. Conclusions. The current results were consistent with the prior studies. Our novel strategy is considered as one of useful procedure for cuff tear arthropathy. However, the case which classified with Seebauer type IIB should not be recommended

Hill-Sachs and reverse Hill-Sachs lesions come in different shapes and sizes, and their effect on “glenoid track” can vary. Small Hill-Sachs lesions that do not engage can be successfully treated with a Bankart repair alone done arthroscopically or open. Moderate, engaging, Hill-Sachs lesions can be treated either with the addition of remplissage to an arthroscopic Bankart or by adding the triple blocking effect of the Bristow-Latarjet procedure. Surface replacements vary in size from the small hemi-cap type of procedure to an entire humeral head replacement (HHR). These devices can be used as opposed to allograft replacement when the risk of post-reconstruction arthritis is high with the aforementioned more conventional treatment techniques. When 45% or more of the humeral head is involved with the lesion, or Outerbridge stage III and IV changes prevail, a HHR is preferred. An oval shaped HHR is the author's preference, and the long diameter can be used to provide coverage anteriorly or posteriorly and is particularly useful in large Hill-Sachs lesions associated with epilepsy

The modern humeral head resurfacing was developed by Stephen Copeland, M.D. and introduced in 1986 as an alternative to stemmed humeral implants. At the time, first and second generation monoblock and modular stems with non-offset humeral heads posed many challenges to the surgeon to recreate the pre-morbid humeral head anatomy during anatomic TSA. The consequences of non-anatomic humeral head replacement were poor range of motion, increased native glenoid or glenoid component wear and premature rotator cuff failure. Additionally, the early generation humeral stems were very difficult to extract when revision was needed. The original stemless devices were cup resurfacing implants that were designed based on the early hip experience. The Copeland resurfacing device offered the ability to better match native humeral head anatomy and was considered less invasive and easier to revise. Glenoid exposure required more extensive dissection but TSA could be successfully completed. Clinical results for motion, function and outcome scores are similar to stemmed implants. The survivorship of the implants is also on par with other available implants and loosening has not been an issue. Stress shielding is not reported. Multiple manufacturers offered similar products all designed to try to predictably recreate the pre-morbid anatomy and to make insertion easier. Critical review of resurfacing arthroplasty radiographs has raised concern about the challenges of placing the implant with proper sizing and position. Most surgeons have implanted resurfacing implants as hemiarthroplasties. The development of anatomic TSA implants has allowed surgeons to better recreate the normal pre-morbid anatomy of the humerus. Newer stem designs are convertible or easily removable. This counters many of the original design benefits of resurfacing. The primary reason for revision of resurfacing implants is malposition followed by glenoid arthrosis and rotator cuff failure. Revision surgery after resurfacing has had mixed results. Stemless implants were introduced in Europe 13 years ago. Stemless devices share the benefits of resurfacing as minimally invasive and easier to revise. The added benefit of better glenoid access allows the surgeon to implant a glenoid. Most available implants have minimal follow-up. Mid-term follow-up of one design has demonstrated good fixation and loosening is uncommon. No studies are available that critically evaluate the surgeon's ability to recreate normal pre-morbid anatomy, whether revision arthroplasty is bone preserving and if results of revision will improve

The Hill-Sachs lesion is a bony defect of the humeral head that occurs in association with anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint. Hill-Sachs lesions are common, with an incidence approaching nearly 100% in the setting of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. However, the indications for surgical management are very limited, with less than 10% of anterior instability patients considered for treatment of the Hill-Sachs lesion. Of utmost importance is addressing bone loss on the anterior-inferior glenoid, which is highly successful at preventing recurrence of instability even with humeral bone loss. In the rare situation where the Hill-Sachs lesion may continue to engage the glenoid, surgical management is indicated. Surgical strategies are variable, including debridement, arthroscopic remplissage, allograft transplantation, surface replacement, and arthroplasty. Given that the population with these defects is typically comprised of young and athletic patients, biologic solutions are most likely to be associated with decades of sustainable joint preservation, function, and stability. The first priority is maximizing the treatment of anterior instability on the glenoid side. Then, small lesions of less than 10% are ignored without consequence. Lesions involving 10–20% of the humeral head are treated with arthroscopic remplissage (defect filled with repair of capsule and infraspinatus). Lesions greater than 20% that extend beyond the glenoid tract are managed with fresh osteochondral allografts to biologically restore the humeral head. Lesions great than 40% are most commonly associated with advanced arthritis and deformity of the humeral articular surface and are therefore treated with a humeral head replacement. This treatment algorithm maximises our ability to stabilise and preserve the glenohumeral joint

Hemi shoulder arthroplasty is a rather successful procedure although revision surgery due to secondary glenoid erosion is reported in more than 25%. The downside of common shoulder arthroplasty is that in a deltopectoral approach the subscapularis tendon needs to be detached for exposure of the humeral head. Refixation of subscapularis tendon is associated with a retear rate of 4%, furthermore with progressing fatty muscle infiltration and loss of function. In case of revision surgery a second subscapularis tendon detachment is even more associated with worse function. Thus, arthroscopic humeral head resurfacing is an expedient alternative for minimal invasive humeral head arthroplasty without compromising subscapularis function. The purpose of this study was to report first clinical and subjective results after arthroscopic-assisted resurfacing of the humeral head. For this prospective case series, 24 patients (7 females, 17 males; mean age 59 years, range 42–73 years) undergoing arthroscopic-assisted partial shoulder resurfacing with the partial eclipse prosthesis were included in the study. Clinical conditions and subjective assessments were evaluated before surgery and annually thereafter using the Constant score (CS), active range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (ASES). Radiological outcomes and major complications were monitored. The mean CS for all patients improved significantly from 51 points preoperatively to 83 points 12 months after surgery (p=0.005). Trends towards increasing ROMs were detected. Subjective scores significantly improved from baseline to the 1-year follow-up (VAS: from 6.4 to 2.5, p=0.010; ASES: from 47 to 76, p=0.026). The majority of patients (88%) stated that they would undergo the procedure again. Revisions were indicated in 17% due to progression of osteoarthritis. Arthroscopic-assisted partial humeral head resurfacing as a minimal invasive procedure with the advantages of bone stock preservation and intact subscapularis tendon allowed immediate postoperative active mobilization and provided significant improvements in subjective outcome. In case of revision surgery a primary situation was encountered with postoperative results comparable to primary arthroplasty

The Hill-Sachs lesion is a bony defect of the humeral head that occurs in association with anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint. Hill-Sachs lesions are common, with an incidence approaching nearly 100% in the setting of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. However, the indications for surgical management are very limited, with less than 10% of anterior instability patients considered for treatment of the Hill-Sachs lesion. Of utmost importance is addressing bone loss on the anterior-inferior glenoid, which is highly successful at preventing recurrence of instability even with humeral bone loss. In the rare situation where the Hill-Sachs lesion may continue to engage the glenoid, surgical management is indicated. Surgical strategies are variable, including debridement, arthroscopic remplissage, allograft transplantation, surface replacement, and arthroplasty. Given that the population with these defects is typically comprised of young and athletic patients, biologic solutions are most likely to be associated with decades of sustainable joint preservation, function, and stability. The first priority is maximising the treatment of anterior instability on the glenoid side. Then, small lesions of less than 10% are ignored without consequence. Lesions involving 10–20% of the humeral head are treated with arthroscopic remplissage (defect filled with repair of capsule and infraspinatus). Lesions greater than 20% that extend beyond the glenoid tract are managed with fresh osteochondral allografts to biologically restore the humeral head. Lesions great than 40% are most commonly associated with advanced arthritis and deformity of the humeral articular surface and are therefore treated with a humeral head replacement. This treatment algorithm maximises our ability to stabilise and preserve the glenohumeral joint

Introduction. We performed humeral head replacement (HHR) with smaller head for closing the cuff defect in patients of cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). And also, if the cuff defect could not close by decreasing the head size, we add muscle tendon transfer such as latissimus dorsi transfer for posterosuperior defect and pectoralis major transfer for anterosuperior defect. Aim. The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical and functional outcomes of this procedure for CTA according to Hamada-Fukuda classification. Methods. 76 shoulders in 77 patients with CTA underwent HHR based on our strategy at average age of 74 years. Hamada-Fukuda classification was classified into five categories. There were 13 type 1, 24 type 2, 26 type 3, 9 type 4, 5 type 5. Clinical outcomes (JOA score) were evaluated at an average of 25 months. Results. The average Japanese Orthopaedic Association shoulder score all improved significantly. Forward elevation improved from 57° to 146.5° in type 1, 65.5° to 132.1° in type 2, 82° to 123.9° in type 3, 90.6° to 122.1° in type 4 and 91° to 130° in type 5. Improvement of External rotation 25° in type 1, 23.1° in type 2, 10.89°in type 3, 11.3° in type 4 and −7.3° in type 5. Internal rotation similarly improved between Hamada-Fukuda classification. Conclusion. In patients of type 1 and 2, our procedure could get a good ER recovery. However, in patients of type 3, 4, and 5, functional outcomes were partly inferior to type 1 and 2. Our procedure for type 1 and 2 CTA is one of useful methods

Purpose: The success of humeral head replacement following fracture is reliant on several factors, one of which is version. The correct humeral version (HV) is highly variable, and is patient and side dependent. In the setting of fracture, there is no intra-operative landmark to guide the surgeon as to the anatomic version. This study has examined computed tomography (CT) of the shoulder and compared the HV to the metaphyseal version (MV) to evaluate reliability in predicting the anatomic version. Method: A retrospective review of 50 shoulder CT scans was carried out. Patients were excluded if the anatomy prevented HV or MV evaluation. The HV and MV was measured by 2 independent evaluators. Inter and intra-rater reliability was performed. Results: There were 27 right and 23 left shoulder CT’s reviewed. The mean age of patients was 45.3 (range 13–85). The difference between the MV and HV was approximately 2.8 (95% CI 0.63–5.1). Inter and intra-rater reliability was 0.966 and 0.984, respectively. Conclusion: Determining the version of the humeral head in the setting of fracture is difficult and highly inaccurate. The biceps groove has been previously cited as a landmark for arthroplasty position, however, given the anatomic variability, version may be miscalculated. We have demonstrated the medial calcar of the proximal humerus is within 3 degrees of the actual humeral head version. This CT guided approach is novel, reproducible and demonstrates excellent reliability. It is both accurate and consistent and may be successfully utilized in the setting where normal anatomic landmarks are absent, such as fracture

There are multiple proximal prosthetic geometries available for a surgeon to select when humeral head replacement is indicated for four-part proximal humerus fractures. We compared different proximal prosthetic geometries in stable and unstable fracture patterns, with a standard tuberosity fixation method. Simulated four-part fractures were created with an oscillating saw in six synthetic shoulder models. Three different proximal prosthetic geometries used polymetylmethacrelate (PMMA) – a smooth circular shape (SCS), a diamond shape (DS) and an irregular multiple fin shape (IMFS) prostheses. A standardised fixation method using vertical, and horizontal straps along with a medial based cerclage strap was performed. Passive motion was then carried out using a robotic articulator. Interfragmentary displacement was measured from tuberosity to tuberosity as well as tuberosity to shaft using mercury strain gauges. The least amount of interfragmentary motion occurred when an IMFS was used in a stable fracture pattern. This geometry provided more interfragmentary stability even with the unstable fracture pattern than the DS or SCS. The least stable construct was the SCS prosthesis with an unstable fracture pattern. Prosthetic geometry does affect stability of tuberosity reconstruction in proximal humerus fractures. An irregular shaped prosthesis augments the fixation construct. When using a smooth prosthetic design a stable fracture pattern must be achieved to prevent excessive interfragmentary motion. A smooth prosthetic design for tuberosity reconstruction is not recommended

The radiographs of sixty-four patients with seventy humeral head replacements were reviewed for signs of stress shielding. Forty-nine were implanted for rheumatoid arthritis, twenty-one for osteoarthritis. The radiographic follow-up averaged 5. 3 years. Measurements of cortex thickness were performed in four regions along the stem of the implant and the differences between the post-operative radiograph and radiograph at follow-up were calculated. The size of the stem in relation to the diameter of the humerus was calculated using validated measures, resulting in the relative stem size. A reduction of 1.6 millimeters or more was considered to be a significant reduction, because this lay outside of the calculated 95% normal range for the group as a whole. In six patients (9%) a significant reduction, in cortical thickness was observed in the proximal lateral region of the humeral stem. Five of these had rheumatoid arthritis and one osteoarthritis. In the stress shielding group the relative stem size was found to be significantly higher (p=0. 013) than in the non-stress shielding group (0. 58 versus 0. 48). Osteoporosis, especially present in rheumatoid arthritis, could well be a risk factor. It was concluded that stress shielding is a long-term complication of shoulder arthroplasty and that the relative stem size is an important factor in its genesis. These resorptive processes may lead to a higher risk of failure of the implant and gives an increased risk for mid-stem fractures, due to cantilever loading. It is also desirable to preserve the proximal bone stock, considering the difficulties that arise when, for whatever reason, revision of the implant is necessary

We report our experience of revision shoulder arthroplasty at Wrightington Hospital. Thirty-Nine patients had undergone revision surgery and followed up for a minimum of two years. Patients were scored using the Constant score and the ASES score pre-operatively and post operatively. All patients had X-ray evaluation for loosening and migration. Of the thirty-nine patients, 16 were failed humeral head replacement (HHR) and 16 were failed total shoulder replacement (TSR). All but two of the HHR were revised for glenoid erosion to a TSR, there was an equal proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Of the 16 patients undergoing revision surgery for failed TSR 6 were rheumatoid, 4 had osteoarthritis and 5 had posttraumatic arthritis. The main reasons for revision include glenoid loosening (7) instability (4) and peri-prosthetic fracture (2). The average constant scores post operatively for HHR and TSR were 35.5 (sd+/− 21.1) and 29.1 (sd+/− 12.1) respectively. The average ASES scores for HHR and TSR were 60.5(sd +/ 27.8) and 50.1(sd +/− 22.0) respectively. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in respect to the constant scores (p value 0.18) or ASES scores (p value 0.16). Overall, the pain relief was good post operatively following both HHR and TSR. The mean visual analogue score for pain following HHR was 3.2 and following TSR 3.5. Range of movement, function and strength was poor following both HHR and TSR. HHR fail in a predictable way and can be revised with conversion to a TSR. TSR fail in a variety of ways and there revision surgery is demanding and complex. Both types of revision offer good pain relief but poor function

Aims: There are multiple proximal prosthetic geometries for humeral head replacement for treatment of four-part proximal humerus fractures. We compared four proximal prosthetic geometries in stable and unstable fracture patterns with a standard tuberosity þxation method. Methods: Twelve synthetic shoulders and 4 cadaver shoulders had a simulated four-part fracture created with an oscillating saw. The following proximal prosthetic geometries were used: smooth circular shape (SCS), diamond shape (DS), irregular multiple þn shape (IMFS), and IMFS with deeper þns (IMSDF). A standardized þxation method using vertical sutures, horizontal sutures and medial based cerclage straps was performed. Passive motion from 0–45 degrees was carried out using a robotic articulator at a rate of 10 degrees per second. Interfragmentary displacement was measured from tuberosity to tuberosity as well as tuberosity to the shaft using mercury strain gauges. This was repeated for stable and unstable fracture patterns. Results: When comparing interfragmentary motion between the four different geometries the greatest amount of motion occurred with the SCS in a stable fracture (0.69mm, p< 0.0001) and unstable fracture (0.71 mm, p< 0.0001). The geometry that provided the most stability was the IMFSDF in stable (0.08mm) and unstable (0.09 mm) fracture patterns. Conclusion: The geometry of the prosthetic device does affect the stability of the tuberosity reconstruction. A smooth circular prosthetic design in a stable or unstable fracture pattern does not prevent excessive interfragmentary motion, while an irregular multiple þn shaped prosthesis with deep þns augments the þxation construct even in an unstable fracture pattern

Introduction. In recently, Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with irreparable rotator cuff tear has been worldwidely performed. Many studies on RSA reported a good improvement in flexion of the sholulder, however, no improvement in external rotation (ER)and internal rotation motion (IR). Additionally, RSA has some risks to perform especially in younger patients, because high rates of complications such as deltoid stretching and loosening, infection, neurologic injury, dislocation, acromial fracture, and breakage of the prosthesis after long-term use were reported. Favard et al noted a 72% survival with a Constant-Murley score of <30 at 10 years with a marked break occurring at 8 years. Boileau et al noted caution is required, as such patients are often younger, and informed consent must obviously cover the high complication rate in this group, as well as the unknown longer-term outcome. Its use should be limited to elderly patients, arguably those aged over 70 years, with poor function and severe pain related to cuff deficiency. We developed a novel strategy in 2001, in which we used the humeral head to close the cuff defect and move the center of rotation medially and distally to increase the lever arm of the deltoid muscle. Aim. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcome of our strategy for younger patients with an irreparable rotator cuff tear. Materials and Methods. Eighteen shoulders (9 of male patients, 9 of female patients) of patients under 70 years old with an irreparable cuff tears and who were treated with Humeral Head Replacement (HHR) and cuff reconstruction were followed up for more than 12 months. The average age was 63.9 years (range, 58–69 years). The average follow-up period was 27.3 months (range, 12–76 months). The cuff defect was successfully closed in 8 shoulders, whereas 8 shoulders required a Latissimus Dorsi transfer; one other shoulder required a Pectralis Major transfer, and one required both Latissimus dorsi and pectoralis major transfers. Range of motion (flexion, ER), the shoulder score of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA score), and complications were evaluated. Results. Shoulder pain decreased in all patients after surgery. JOA score was improved from 41.1 to 82.6 points after surgery, Flexion motion improved from 72.5 to 145.6 degrees postoperatively and ER increased from 17.5 to 37.8 degrees postoperatively. There were no complications. Conclusion. In our study, HHR using the small head of the humerus and cuff reconstruction for patients under 70 years old with an irreparable rotator cuff tear yielded favorable results as compared to RSA, especially in terms of the ER Furthermore, the advantages of our strategy is able to keep bone stock of the glenoid after surgery. If revision surgery is required, RSA can be performed. Since the patients included in our study were relatively active, long-term follow-up will be required to assess their progress

We reviewed forty-three patients who had humeral head replacement for proximal humeral fractures between 1992–2000, with a minimum of two years of follow-up. The patients were evaluated for range of motion, post-operative pain, and the overall activities using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation form (ASESE) and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). Patients with delayed surgery had more pain than those with primary hemiarthroplasty, all of which were treated with the Global type prosthesis. Postoperative pain was significantly associated with the presence of intra-operative cuff tear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome after hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures and whether the prosthesis type, intra-operative technique, or the presence of previous surgery would affect the outcome. The Medical records and radiographs of patients who had hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures between 1992–2000 were reviewed. Forty-three patients were identified, thirty-seven with acute fractures and six with fracture related complications. One surgeon performed fifteen cases (35%), while the rest divided among eleven others. The patients were evaluated for pain, range of motion, strength, stability, and function using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation form (ASESE) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. The radiographs were reviewed by the senior authors. The mean age of the patients at presentation was sixty-nine year (range forty-six to ninety-five year). The mean duration of follow-up was 4.6 years. The mean active forward elevation was ninety-six, active external rotation twenty-two, and the mean active internal rotation was eight. Fifteen percent of the patients reported severe pain and twenty-five percent were unable to sleep on the affected side. The patients with previous surgeries and those with intra-operative cuff tear were found to have more post-operative pain (p=0.027 and 0.022 respectively). The Global type prosthesis was used in all the cases of secondary hemiarthroplasty (p=0.031) and all the Neer prostheses were cemented (0.001). We concluded that integrity of rotator cuff and primary surgery were more inclined to better results. There does remain significant stiffness and pain in most patients however

Aim: To evaluate the role and outcome of FFTSA in shoulders with arthritis and/or irreparable rotator cuff tears. Materials. The records of 60 consecutive patients with FFTSA were retrospectively reviewed. Primary FFTSA (group 1) was performed in 29 (48%), revision FFTSA (group 2) in 26 (43%), and re-revision FFTSA (group 3) in 5 (9%) patients. The mean age at primary FFTSA was 70 years (37 – 82), and at revision FFTSA, 67.6 years (38 – 89) at a mean interval of 38 months after primary intervention. In re-revision FFTSA the interval between the primary (mean age 64 years) and final (mean age 68.4 years) interventions varied from 20 to 148 months. Primary FFTSA was performed for cuff arthropathy in 18 (62%) and after trauma in 5 (17%): all 29 patients had rotator cuff insufficiency. Revision FFTSA was performed for failure of humeral head replacement (HHR) after fracture in 17 (65%) of which 14 had rotator cuff insufficiency. All those in group 3 had rotator cuff insufficiency. The dominant indication for intervention was pain in 59 cases. The glenoid component was uncemented in all cases. The humeral component was cemented in 27 of the 29 Primary FFTSA. CADCAM variations of the standard humeral design were used in 8 cases. Results. At a mean follow-up of 25 months, 81% of primary FFTSA had no or mild pain, and 87.5% were satisfied or very satisfied with the outcome: both outcomes were independent of the original rotator cuff defect. At a mean follow-up of 41 months, 69% of revision FFTSA had no or mild pain, and 68 % were satisfied or very satisfied: the least satisfied patients were those in which a previous HHR for fracture had been the primary intervention. There were 3 complications in group 1, 2 in group 2, and 2 in group 3. In 4 patients with deficient deltoid function, 3 were satisfied with the eventual outcome. Conclusion. FFTSA has a clear role in the management of shoulders in which the rotator cuff has failed and a joint replacement is required for pain relief

Background: After Jules-Emile Pean and Neer, unconstrained prosthetic arthroplasty of the shoulder is widely used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and trauma. While the debate continues over whether humeral head replacement (HHR) or total shoulder arthroplasty (TSR) is better for OA and RA, hemiarthroplasty is preferred in the trauma situation. Aims: A retrospective review (1993–2000) of 54 patients with the DePuy Global second generation modular shoulder hemiarthroplasty is presented. We highlight the various complications encountered in the longer term and attempt to use our experience to rationalize treatment choice. Methods: 49 shoulders in 41 patients were available for review. Case records and radiographs were reviewed and clinical assessment carried out. Functional assessment was done using the Constant (CM) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Society systems (ASES). Patients were also asked to complete a shoulder self assessment questionnaire (Insalata, Hospital for Special Surgery). Results: The pre-op diagnosis was 20 RA, 12 OA, 11 trauma. The mean age was 63.4Yrs. The mean follow up was 6.8Yrs (4–11 Yrs). The mean Constant scores for the 3 groups were 48.1 RA, 46.3 OA, and 56.6 trauma. The mean ASES functional scores were 39.6 RA, 37.5 OA and 32.9 trauma. Active elevation in the RA group was a mean of 83.5°, and 69.5° for OA and 79° for the trauma group. 65% of the RA group was completely pain free compared to 50% and 54% in the OA and trauma groups respectively. Patient satisfaction was high in the RA and OA groups but poor in the trauma group. 90% of RA patients had evidence of superior migration of the prosthesis (ASM), with the majority of them developing cuff dysfunction. 36% of trauma patients had tuberosity escape/nonunion. 100% of OA patients developed late glenoid erosion. Presence of secondary glenoid arthrosis and ASM co-related with poor function (r =0.5, p< 0.05). Discussion. Second generation prosthesis can prejudice the shoulder biomechanics. Over-tensioning the joint can lead to both glenoid wear and cuff rupture. In OA patients, satisfaction was highest, but function was poor. Patients with out cuff tear pre-operatively did not develop it later. They may thus benefit from a TSR compared to HHR. RA patients had the least pain, best function and high satisfaction. Most had evidence of either primary or secondary cuff dysfunction. In them patients HHR may be the preferred option. Trauma patients did poorly in all respects. More anatomical reconstruction and greater emphasis on salvage of the humeral head is required in this group