Introduction

Modern prostheses of the 3rd and 4th generation facilitate a precise adjustment to various humeral anatomies. This provides major advantages regarding soft tissue balancing and the reconstruction of the rotational center. Thus, high expectations are linked to the use of modern shoulder prostheses compared to conventional designs.

Problem: The displacement of the rotation centre of the humeral head in relation to the shaft axis strongly varies individually. In order to measure the position of the pivot points of the head, the Affinis shoulder prosthesis has a double eccentric adjustment possibility that permits to adapt the head to the medial and dorsal offset. So far, such examinations took place exclusively on the anatomical preparation. This raises the question of whether the need for such a prosthetic system can be derived from the anatomical variation of the pivot points.

Method: In 126 patients with an Affinis shoulder prosthesis, we calculated the individual rotation centres of the head from the position of the adjustable prosthetic cone and the eccentric position of the head. In addition, we used the Constant Score to record the clinical function.

Results: We found great variation of the rotational centres. Therefore we needed the entire setting range of 12mm mediolateral and 6mm dorsoventral. The examination showed that none of the found anatomic head centres could have been reconstructed exactly with a conventional prosthesis. Prosthesis with a single eccentricity would allow correct adjustment in only 22 cases, as the adjustable rotational centres of the head are situated on a circle, which limits the setting possibilities. The Constant Score of the total group improved from 29% preoperatively to 94% after 2 years.

Conclusions: The high variation of the head centres indicates the necessity of a freely adjustable system, such as in a double eccentric bearing. This is the only way that permits an optimal reconstruction of the anatomical conditions – it prevents an increased tension of the rotator cuff, reduces the eccentric loading of the glenoid and creates the prerequisites for the anatomical kinematics. The good clinical results speak for the need to observe bony balancing.

Introduction: The Allofit cup is a hemispherical pressfit cup with a flattened pole for cementless implantation. Clinical use started in 1993 and we report our clinical and radiographic results of the first 100 cases. 75 hips of this group have been followed during the first 3 to 4 years using EBRA for migration analysis. These results also are presented.

Material: Out of 100 hips 81 have been followed mith a mean of 10,1 years (9,8–11). 6 patients died, 11 did not show for follow up an 1 patient had a revision for deep infection with two-stage exchange meanwhile.

The initial diagnosis was primary coxarthrosis in 63, rheumatoid arthritis in 10, congenital dislocation of the hip in 5 and necrosis of the femoral hed in 3.

In all cases the cementless Alloclassic stem was used, as bearing material metasul was implanted in 73 and ceramic-polyethylene in 8 cases.

Complications: For prolonged exsudation from the wound one soft tissue revision was necessary. 2 luxations were treated conservative. One early deep infection healed after synovectomy and irrigation, one late deep infection was cured by a two stage reimplantation.

Results: The EBRA migration analysis after 3,6 years (2,3–4,2) showed cranial migration of 0,35 mm (0,2–0,6 mm), medial migration of 0,25 mm (0,10–0,40 mm) and a calculated total migration as a combination of both of 0,45 mm (0,22–0,72). Therefore at this time there was no evidence of early loosening or migration indicating later loosening.

The preoperative Harris hip score was 53,13 pts (23–73), the postoperative score after 10 years 96,5 (78–100).

Radiographic evaluation after 10 years showed no lucencies in 78 of 81 jpints. 3 hips had a lucent line of 1mm in zone III. We detected no signs of osteolysis, loosening or migration.

No reoperations for any reason exept 2 septic cases have been performed yet.

Summary: After 10 years the clinical and radiological results of this implant are very satisfying. These results confirm the early observations of a migration analysis performed 6 to 8 years before.