Aims. Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA), compared with traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA), is more expensive and carries unique concern related to metal ions production and hypersensitivity. Additionally, SRA is a more demanding procedure with a decreased margin for error compared with THA. To justify its use, SRA must demonstrate comparable component survival and some clinical advantages. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to investigate the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, stress shielding, and hip biomechanics between SRA and THA. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Inclusion criteria were level I to level III articles that reported clinical outcomes following primary SRA compared with THA. An initial search yielded 2503 potential articles for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included review articles, level IV or level V evidence, less than one year’s follow-up, and previously reported data. In total, 27 articles with 4182 patients were available to analyze. Results. Fracture and infection rates were similar between SRA and THA, while dislocation rates were lower in SRA compared with THA. SRA demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcome scores with greater activity scores and a return to high-level activities compared with THA. SRA more reliably restored native hip joint biomechanics and decreased stress shielding of the proximal femur compared with THA. Conclusion. In young active men with osteoarthritis, there is evidence that SRA offers some potential advantages over THA, including: improved return to high level activities and sport, restoration of native hip biomechanics, and decreased proximal femoral stress shielding. Continued long-term follow up is required to assess ultimate survivorship of SRA

We describe the results of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty using the mark III prosthesis in patients over 80 years of age. End-stage arthritis of the shoulder is a source of significant pain and debilitating functional loss in the elderly. An arthroplasty offers good relief of pain and may allow the patient to maintain independence. The risk-benefit ratio of shoulder replacement may be felt to be too high in an elderly age group, but there is no published evidence to support this theory. We have assessed whether the procedure was as reliable and safe as previously seen in a younger cohort of patients. Between 1993 and 2003, 213 Copeland surface replacement arthroplasty procedures were performed in our unit, of which 29 (13.6%) were undertaken in patients over the age of 80. This group of patients was followed up for a mean of 4.5 years (2.1 to 9.3). Their mean age was 84.3 years (81 to 93), the mean operating time was 40 minutes (30 to 45) and the mean in-patient stay was five days (2 to 21). There were no peri-operative deaths or significant complications. The mean Constant score adjusted for age and gender, improved from 15.1% to 77%. Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty may be performed with minimal morbidity and rapid rehabilitation in the elderly

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results. A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions. We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort. Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:88–91

Fractures of the proximal humerus can lead to malalignment of the humeral head, necrosis and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. In such cases surface replacement might be a promising option. A total of 28 shoulders with glenohumeral arthritis subsequent to a fracture underwent surface replacement arthroplasty of the humeral head in patients with a mean age of 60 years (35 to 83). On the basis of the inclination of the impacted head, post-traumatic arthritis was divided into three types: type 1, an impacted fracture of the head in an anatomical position (seven cases); type 2, a valgus impacted fracture (13 cases); type 3, a varus impacted fracture (eight cases). The outcome was measured by means of the Constant score. According to the Boileau classification of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus, all 28 patients had a final result of intra-capsular category 1. The mean Constant score for the 28 shoulders increased from 23.2 points (2 to 45) pre-operatively to 55.1 points (20 to 89) at a mean of 31 months (24 to 66) post-operatively. Valgus impacted fractures had significantly better results (p < 0.039). Surface replacement arthroplasty can provide good results for patients with post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the shoulder. Their use avoids post-operative complications of the humeral shaft, such as peri-prosthetic fractures. Further surgery can be undertaken more easily as the bone stock is preserved

There has been a renewed interest in surface replacement arthroplasty over the last decade, with the hope and expectation that this procedure would provide an advantage over conventional total hip arthroplasty, especially in the young, active patient. More specifically, the promises of surface replacement arthroplasty have been: 1) preservation of bone stock so that future revisions would be easier, 2) potential to be minimally invasive in their approach, 3) better functional outcomes because of the stability associated with a larger femoral head with potential associated proprioceptive advantages, and 4) improved survivorship. Unfortunately, these promises have not been realised. Surface replacement arthroplasty does maintain more initial bone stock on the femur, but also tends to remove more bone initially on the acetabular side. Long term, it is the loss of acetabular bone stock that is more problematic from a reconstructive perspective. Further, the “simple” revision afforded in surface replacement arthroplasty has led to reports of inferior clinical outcomes, especially with respect to subjective complaints of pain. Surface replacement arthroplasty is more invasive than conventional total hip arthroplasty as the femoral head is maintained and the window to the acetabulum is subsequently partially blocked. This is exacerbated by the fact that many of these patients are young active males. There is no compelling evidence that surface replacement arthroplasty offers improved functional outcomes over conventional total hip arthroplasty, particularly when considering gait and proprioception. Some studies have in fact shown inferior outcomes. The concept of the larger femoral head in surface replacement arthroplasty providing increased range of motion and subsequent better function is flawed as it is the head-to-neck ratio that appears to be a more important determinant of outcome in this sense. Total hip arthroplasty generally has a more favorable ratio. Surface replacement arthroplasty has inferior survivorship to conventional total hip arthroplasty, even when accounting for the younger age of this patient cohort. This finding is consistent across multiple national joint replacement registries. The outcomes and survivorship are particularly poor in females, with many authors now advocating that the procedure be reserved for males. Surface replacement arthroplasty has introduced several new problems and mechanisms of failures, most concerning of which is the formation of pseudotumors in some patients. It is unclear as to who is at risk for this significant complication, and the ability to diagnose and treat this disorder is difficult and still in evolution. Likely associated is the significant elevation of metal ions in the serum and urine of some surface replacement arthroplasty patients. Neck fractures and loss of bone stock around the femoral implant have also been noted as problematic for these devices. Some of these problems have led to specific surface replacement arthroplasty systems being recalled. Finally, surface replacement arthroplasties are premium products with associated increased costs, which, frankly, are not justified

Surface replacement of the hip was established in the 1970's as a bone preserving alternative to total hip replacement. However, problems with femoral neck fracture, osteolysis, and component loosening led to early failures and an abandonment of the procedure. The modern generation of hip resurfacing, however, has improved upon past results with new implant designs and materials. Better surgical guides and a short femoral stem allows for more accurate placement of the implants. A metal-on-metal articulation creates a larger diameter bearing and avoids polyethylene wear debris. Also paramount in the recent successes of surface replacement are refinements in surgical techniques, leading to more accurate component positioning, avoidance of neck notching, and an appreciation of the femoral head blood supply. The mid-term results of these newer hip resurfacing devices, coupled with appropriate patient selection and good surgical technique, have been encouraging. Although more recently surface replacement has come under fire because of the metal-on-metal articulation, the Australian National Joint Registry finds that a certain group of patients has greater survivorship with resurfacing than with total hip replacement. Therefore, the presenter feels that surface replacement arthroplasty is still a viable option in this subgroup of patients. Additionally, the benefits of surface replacement include the preservation of bone, a lower dislocation rate, and potentially a higher activity level

Purpose: Surface replacement arthroplasty is being increasingly offered as the treatment of choice to young and active patients with hip arthritis with proposed advantages including bone conservation and better functional outcome. Excellent outcome has been reported in the few recent short-term clinical series of surface replacement arthroplasty. However they have an inbuilt patient selection bias. There are no direct prospective randomized studies comparing the newer generation of surface replacement arthroplasty with conventional total hip arthroplasty. Our study addresses this issue. Method: 210 hips in 194 patients were randomized to receive either an uncemented total hip arthroplasty or a hybrid metal-on-metal surface replacement arthroplasty. Complications, functional outcomes, along with patient satisfaction and radiographic evaluation were compared at a minimum of two years follow up. Results: Patients in both groups demonstrated a very high satisfaction rate and achieved similar functional scores. Four dislocations occurred in the THA group (one needing acetabular cup revision) and none in the SRA group. There were no femoral neck fractures in the surface replacement arthroplasty group. However, two surface replacement arthroplasty cases underwent revision for late head collapse and one needed a femoral neck osteoplasty for persisting femoro-acetabular impingement. Better biomechanical restoration was attained with surface replacement arthroplasty. All the components were considered to be stable after an average follow up of 45 months. Conclusion: Although surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip offer similar patient satisfaction, functional outcome and complication rate as an uncemented total hip arthroplasty in a young and active group of patients, different complications were associated to each procedure. Better patient selection could avoid some of the complications in the surface replacement arthroplasty group. One main advantage that remains for the surface arthroplasty technique it is the proximal femoral bone stock preservation. However, long term survival analysis is necessary to determine the true advantage of these implants over total hip arthroplasty

Introduction: Shoulder surface replacement arthroplasty has been established for several decades as a mean to restore comfort and function of the shoulder for many afflictions that derange the normal anatomy. The surface replacement may offer some advantages over the stemmed prostheses. Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of Copeland cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (CSRA) applied in patients with bony defects of the humeral head. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted on 18 patients (2 patients with chronic posterior dislocation, 8 patients with AVN, 8 patients with posttraumatic head necrosis) with bony head defects that were operated on between 1999 and 2006. The patients were followed up clinically and radiologically for a mean of 24.8 months (range, 10–78 months). There were 8 female and 10 male shoulders. The mean age was 55.3 years (range, 27–71). The clinical assessment was performed with the Constant score. Results: The constant score significantly improved from a mean of 14.83 points preoperatively to 64.34 points postoperatively. The average pain score increased from 0.3 points to 9.8 points. The average ROM score increased from 8.21 points to 23.21 points. The humeral offset increased from 22.3 mm to 28.8 mm. Conclusion: The shoulder surface replacement arthroplasty shows good mid-term results in patients with bony defects

Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder is designed to replace the damaged joint surfaces and restore normal anatomy with minimal resection of bone. We have used the Copeland shoulder arthroplasty for 14 years. Between 1986 and 2000, 285 surface replacement arthroplasties were implanted in our unit. The prosthesis has evolved during this time, but the principle of minimal bone resection has remained the same. Between 1990 and 1994, 103 Mark-2 prostheses were inserted into 94 patients (9 bilateral). The operations were carried out for the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, instability arthropathy, post-traumatic arthropathy and cuff arthropathy. The mean follow-up was for 6.8 years (5 to 10). The best results were achieved in primary osteoarthritis, with Constant scores of 93.7% for total shoulder replacement and 73.5% for hemiarthroplasty. The poorest results were seen in patients with cuff arthropathy and post-traumatic arthropathy with adjusted Constant scores of 61.3% and 62.7%, respectively. Most patients (93.9%) considered their shoulder to be much better or better than before the operation. Of the 88 humeral implants available for radiological review, 61 (69.3%) showed no evidence of radiolucency, nor did 21 (35.6%) of the 59 glenoid prostheses. Three were definitely loose, and eight shoulders required revision (7.7%), two (1.9%) for primary loosening. The results of this series are comparable with those for stemmed prostheses with a similar follow-up and case mix. The cementless surface replacement arthroplasty diminishes the risk of complications involving the humeral shaft and periprosthetic fractures. Revision or arthrodesis can be undertaken easily since the bone stock has been maintained with no loss of length

Surface replacement of the hip has become established as an alternative treatment to total hip replacement in the younger, active, male patient. By the very nature of preserving the femoral head and neck, there may be failures due to femoral neck fracture and femoral component loosening. Additionally, revisions of hip resurfacing for acetabular loosening may be necessary. Other scientific papers have described problems that may arise as a result of the metal-on-metal bearing either due to excess metal production or an immunologic-mediated reaction to the metal debris. Grammatopolous et al. describe poor results of revisions of surface replacements due to massive tissue destruction at the time of revision surgery, persistent pain, and swelling. In my experience with hip resurfacing, this complication is extremely rare. In my series of 925 resurfacings with a minimum of 2 year follow up, 12 revisions (1.3%) have been performed. Of these revisions, only 3 (0.3%) were for complications related to the metal-on-metal bearing; 2 for edge-loading and excess metal production, and 1 for metal hypersensitivity. None of the revision cases have had abductor destruction, or nerve/vascular involvement. Reconstruction of the joint was carried out with standard and revision components; post-operative function of these patients has been comparable to that of a primary total hip replacement. With careful monitoring of the post-operative resurfacing patient, problems can be identified early and surface replacement conversion can be performed with excellent results

Introduction: Glenohumeral arthritis with a massive rotator cuff tear is a devastating condition that seriously compromises the comfort and function of the shoulder. Cuff tear arthropathy presents a unique surgical challenge and many arthroplasty options were used for its treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of Copeland cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (CSRA) applied in patients with cuff tear arthropathy and intact subscapularis function. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted on twenty five shoulders in twenty five patients with cuff tear arthropathy with the subscapularis tendon still intact. The patients were prospectively followed up clinically and radiologically for a mean of 26 months (range, 15–38 months). There were 16 female and 9 male shoulders. The mean age was 69.04 years (range,53–83years). The mean operative time was 38 minutes (range, 28–56minutes). The clinical assessment was performed with the Constant score. Results: The constant score significantly improved from a mean of 14.04 points preoperatively to 53.17 points postoperatively. Of the patients, 88% considered the shoulder to be much better or better as a result of the operation. Radiologically, the humeral offset, the lateral gleno-humeral offset (coracoid base to the greater tuberosity), height of center of instant rotation and the acromio-humeral distance were significantly increased. No intra-or postoperative complications encountered. Conclusion: Our early results with the use of Copeland surface replacement in selected cases with cuff tear arthropathy were encouraging. The patients showed significant clinical (pain and range of motion) and radiological improvements. Moreover, if the surface replacement were to fail for any reason, it can be revised to a reverse prosthesis type as there is no lack of bone stock

Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the humeral head is an extremely disabling condition (Gerber et al, JSES 1998. 7(6):586–90). The results of stemmed arthroplasty for this condition are good, with Hattrup and Cofield reporting 79% subjective improvement at nine years (JSES 2000;9:177–82). This study reports the outcomes of surface replacement shoulder arthroplasties for AVN over a 16 year period. Between 1986 and 2001 twenty-seven arthroplasties were performed in patients with advanced avascular necrosis of the humeral head. All patients had secondary degenerative changes. AVN was secondary to corticosteriods and trauma in most cases. The mean age of the patients was 60 years (range 35 to 86). These included 16 hemiarthroplasties and 7 total shoulder arthroplasties. All prostheses were of the Copeland Surface Replacement Arthroplasty (CSRA) type. The average follow up period was 6 years (range 1 to 13). The average preoperative Constant score was 17. This improved to 74 at follow-up. Forward flexion improved from 63 degrees preoperatively to 133 degrees at follow-up. Abduction improved from 49 degrees to 118 degrees. External rotation improved from −3 degrees to 61 degrees. Pain scores improved from 0 to 11.7, using a 15 point visual analogue scale. 81% of patients had slight and no difficulty performing their routine activities of daily living. The remaining 19% still had some difficulty with routine activities. Four of the patients performed regular overhead activity and recorded some difficulty in doing this, whereas they had great difficulty pre-operatively. There were no cases of loosening. No difference was seen in any of the results between the hemi-arthroplasty and total shoulder replacement patients. Surface replacement arthroplasty is a suitable procedure for degenerative disease secondary to AVN of the humeral head, with results similar to stemmed prostheses. It has the advantage of preserving bone stock

The Copeland Shoulder Arthroplasty is a cementless, pegged humeral head surface replacement. The design is based on the principle of minimal bone resection and has been in clinical use since 1986. The only published series to date, that of Levy and Copeland, reported results for 103 patients which were comparable to those obtained with stemmed implants. We report the outcome at our institution using the same prosthesis with a hydroxyapatite coating. 81 shoulders (74 patients) underwent resurfacing hemiarthroplasty through an anterior deltopectoral approach. Preoperative diagnoses were: osteoarthritis (39), rheumatoid arthritis (29), rotator cuff arthropathy (1), post-traumatic arthrosis (2). They were followed for an average 28 months. 10 were lost to follow-up (8 deaths). Constant scores improved from a mean preoperative figure of 15.7 to 54.0 (p< 0.01) at last follow-up. For rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis the scores improved from 15.2 to 50.4 (p< 0.01) and 16.0 to 55.4 (p,< 0.01) respectively. There was a 13% complication rate with one case requiring revision for loosening to a stemmed implant. Most were cases requiring subsequent acromioplasty. In one case the glenoid rim was fractured during head dislocation. There was a low rate of perioprosthetic radiolucency (4.2%) which may relate to the hydroxyappatite coating within the shell of the prosthesis. Ipsilateral stemmed elbow replacement was performed in some cases without a double stress riser effect. Periprosthetic humeral neck fracture as managed non-operatively with uneventful union. Conclusion: The good outcome reported in Copeland’s own series has been replicated in the early to medium term at our institution. The surface replacement system is simpler, accurate and preserves bone stock

Introduction: There is an increasing interest in surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) as an alternative to conventional THA (cTHA) in young and active patients. However, there has been considerable variability in reported outcomes. National joint registry reports have shown increased revision rates compared to cTHA. We analysed outcome measured as non-septic revision rate within two years for SRA in the NARA data base (Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association). Materials and Methods: 1638 SRA and 163802 cTHA with age up to 73 years and a non-fracture diagnosis, operated from 1995 to 2007, were compared using Cox multiple regression including age, gender, diagnosis, nation and prosthesis type with cTHA divided into cemented, uncemented, hybrid and reversed hybrid fixation. Men below 50 years of age (460 SRA and 7185 cTHA) were analysed as a subset. The SRA cohort with a mean follow-up 1,8 years was also analysed with the same method including age, gender, diagnosis, number of performed SRA per hospital and the four most commonly used prosthesis designs. In an additional analysis femoral head diameter was added, reducing the number of cases to 1552. results are presented as relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval(CI). Results: SRA had a more than twofold increased revision risk compared to cTHA, RR=2,50 (1,67–3,70), which increased to 3,63 (2,42–5,44) when compared with all cemented THA. In the subpopulation of men below 50 years of age, there was no difference between SRA and any of the cTHA cathegories. Within the SRA group RR was reduced by male gender, RR=0,46 (0,25–0,86), in hospital performing > 70 SRA (RR=0,26, 0,11–0,60) and with use of BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) compared to all other designs (RR=0,27, 0,12–0,61). The size of the femoral head diameter had no significant influence on the early revision rate. Discussion and Conclusion: Surface replacement arthroplasty has an increased risk of early revision compared to conventional and cemented THA except for men below 50 years of age. There is a learning curve on the hospital level. Cases with secondary osteoarthritis were comparatively few and were mainly caused by pediatric hip disease. SRA might become an alternative for young men, but our follow up is too short to determine if this indication remains in the longer perspective

The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip resurfacing arthroplasty has a failure rate of 12.0% at five years, compared with 4.3% for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR). We analysed 66 ASR and 64 BHR explanted metal-on-metal hip replacements with the aim of understanding their mechanisms of failure. We measured the linear wear rates of the acetabular and femoral components and analysed the clinical cause of failure, pre-revision blood metal ion levels and orientation of the acetabular component. There was no significant difference in metal ion levels (chromium, p = 0.82; cobalt, p = 0.40) or head wear rate (p = 0.14) between the two groups. The ASR had a significantly increased rate of wear of the acetabular component (p = 0.03) and a significantly increased occurrence of edge loading (p < 0.005), which can be attributed to differences in design between the ASR and BHR. The effects of differences in design on the in vivo wear rates are discussed: these may provide an explanation as to why the ASR is more sensitive to suboptimal positioning than the BHR

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis often leads to severe destruction of the glenohumeral joint including synovitis and inflammation induced alterations of the rotator cuff. Cup arthroplasty, or surface replacement of the shoulder was introduced in the 1980s. The aim of this study was to confirm or withdraw the very promising results of the DUROM-Cup surface replacement for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients an Methods: From 1997 to 2000 a cohort of 42 DUROM-Cup hemiprotheses were implanted in 35 patients. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and after 3,12 and more than 60 month postoperatively. 7 patients were lost to follow up. A total of 35 DUROM-Cups (29 patients) could be examined prospectively after an average follow up period of 73.1 (+/− 12.1) month (Average age 61.4y, female n=21, male n=68). Rotator cuff defects were classified intraoperatively. Results: Three revisions occured: One due to a too large implant, one due to glenoid erosion and one due to loosening of the implant. The constant score increased from preoperatively 20.8 points to 64.3 points at a mean follow up of 73.1 month. No differences were seen in patients with massive cuff tears. In these cases the cup was implanted in a more valgic position, so that articulation with the acromion could be achieved. The radiographic results did not show any changing of the parameters for the position of the cup. No further endo-prosthetic loosening was observed. The proximal migration increased in 66% and the glenoid depht increased in 37% of the cups. Discussion: The results of the cemented DUROM-Cup surface replacement for patients with advanced rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder are very encouraging, especially in patients with massive tearing of the rotator cuff. The advantages of cup arthroplasty are to be found in the reduced level of invasive surgery and the simpler technique with bone saving fixation. In the event of failure of the implant good further treatment options for salvage procedures remain

Copeland Surface replacement arthroplasty provides a good outcome in cases of arthritis. However, the limitation of use of this prosthesis is severe bone loss of the humeral head. We describe the use of Copeland Surface Replacement Shoulder Arthroplasty in cases of severe humeral head destruction extending more than 50% of the humeral head. The bone deficiency was reconstructed with the autograft from the reaming and reshaping of the humeral head and a synthetic bone graft substitute (Tricalcium phosphate granules (Biosorb)) mixed with the patient’s blood. We report preliminary results in 8 cases. 3 males and 4 females (One patient bilateral). The average age was 48 years ( 22–76 years). 5 cases had Posttraumatic avascular necrosis of humeral head, two patients had locked posterior fracture dislocation with loss of more than 50% of the humeral head and one patient with severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. In this series the remaining bone of humeral head was less than 50% ranging between 30–50% (average 38%). The patients were followed clinically and radiographically. The average follow–up was 10.6 months (range: 5 to 15 months). All patients had substantial improvement in there shoulder function and pain. All the patients were very satisfied. Average pre-op constant score was 9.3 points (range: 9–14). At the latest follow-up the average constant score was 59 (range: 36–74). Age and sex adjusted constant score was 68.6 (range: 37– 87). Radiographically we observed good incorporation of the Bone graft substitute with no signs of loosening or any lucencies under the prosthesis. These are early and encouraging results in this group of young patients with severe destruction of the humeral head. It seems like it may provide a good bone preserving solution in these cases and extend the frontiers for the surface replacement of the shoulder

The classic Hill-Sachs lesion is a compression or impression fracture of the humeral head in occurrence with anterior glenohumeral instability. The true incidence is unknown but clearly increases with recurrent instability episodes. Recent peer-reviewed literature has highlighted the importance of addressing “significant” humeral and glenoid bone defects in the management of glenohumeral instability. Quantification of the “significance” of a Hill-Sachs lesion with regard to location, size, and depth in relation to the glenoid has helped guide indications for surgical management. Options for managing Hill-Sachs lesions include both humeral-sided techniques (soft tissue, bone, and/or prosthetic techniques) and also glenoid-sided techniques (bone transfers to increase glenoid width). The majority of significant acute or chronic Hill-Sachs lesions can be effectively managed without prosthetic replacement. Is a prosthetic surface replacement ever indicated for the management of Hill-Sachs lesions? The peer-reviewed literature is sparse with the outcomes of this treatment, and significant consideration must be given to both the age of the patient and the need for such management when other effective non-prosthetic options exist. In a patient with more than half of the humeral head involved after instability episodes (perhaps seizure or polytrauma patients), metallic surface replacement arthroplasty may be an option that could require less involved post-operative care while restoring range of motion and stability

Introduction: Surface replacement of the hip has been proposed as an alternative to total hip replacement, particularly in young active patients. The suggested benefits include preservation of bone stock for future revision surgery and avoidance of proximal femoral stress protection, which can cause bone resorption. However, following femoral head resurfacing, femoral neck fracture can occur. The aim of this study was to compare the strain pattern in intact and resurfaced femurs using validated third generation composite femurs and rosette strain gauges. Methods: Rosette strain gauges were applied to an intact and a resurfaced third generation composite femur at three sites; narrowest part of the lateral surface of the neck, narrowest part of the medial surface of the neck and medial surface at the level of lesser trochanter. The femurs were loaded with axial loads of 600N, 800N and 1000N sequentially. The tests were repeated thrice for each femur. Maximum and minimum principal strains were calculated. Further tests were carried out in which an abductor load was included in the model. Testing was done at 600N and repeated thrice for each femur. The principal strains were calculated and compared with the the principal strains without the abductor load. Results: The maximum principal strains in the resurfaced femur were approximately 50% higher in the lateral surface of the neck and about 30% higher in the lesser trochanteric region when loaded without including an abductor force. Inclusion of the abductor force decreased the strain particularly at the lateral surface of the neck by approximately 45% in the intact femur and approximately 25% in the implanted femur. Even with the inclusion of the abductor load the strain in the resurfaced femur remained more than 50% higher at the lateral surface of the neck and 20% higher in the lesser trochanteric region. Conclusion: Our study suggests that proximal femoral stress protection will not occur following surface replacement of the hip. The increased strain at the lateral surface of the neck could result in fracture, particularly if there is notching of the neck or if abductor function has been compromised, which can happen particularly with the direct lateral approach

Aims. Our first aim was to determine whether there are significant changes in the level of metal ions in the blood at mid-term follow-up, in patients with an Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) arthroplasty. Secondly, we sought to identify risk factors for any increases. Patients and Methods. The study involved 435 patients who underwent unilateral, metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HRA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). These patients all had one measurement of the level of metal ions in the blood before seven years had passed post-operatively (early evaluation) and one after seven years had passed post-operatively (mid-term evaluation). Changes in ion levels were tested using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We identified subgroups at the highest risk of increase using a multivariable linear logistic regression model. Results. There were significant increases in the levels of metal ions for patients who underwent both MoM HRA (Chromium (Cr): 0.5 parts per billion (ppb); Cobalt (Co): 1.1 ppb) and MoM THA (Cr: 0.5 ppb; Co: 0.7 ppb). In a multivariable model considering MoM HRAs, the change in the levels of metal ions was influenced by female gender (Co: Odds Ratio (OR) 1.42; p = 0.002 and Cr: OR 1.08; p = 0.006). The change was found to be irrespective of the initial level for the MoM HRAs, whereas there was a negative relationship between the initial level and the change in the level for those with a MoM THA (Co: OR -0.43; p <  0.001 and Cr: OR -0.14; p = 0.033). Conclusion. The levels of metal ions in the blood increase significantly over the period until mid-term follow-up in patients with both a MoM HRA and those with a MoM THA. We recommend that the levels of metal ions be measured most frequently for women with a MoM HRA. While those with a MoM THA appear to stabilise at a certain level, the accuracy of this trend is not yet clear. Vigilant follow-up is still recommended. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):33–40