Introduction. The new era of shoulder arthroplasty is moving away from long stemmed, cemented humeral components to cementless, stemless and metaphyseal fixed implants and to humeral resurfacing. The early clinical results and functional outcome of stemless shoulder arthroplasty is presented. Methods. A retrospective single-surgeon series of stemless shoulder prostheses implanted from 2011 to 2013 at our institution was evaluated. Perioperative complications, Theatre time and length of hospital stay (LOS) were recorded. Postoperative radiographic and clinical evaluation including measurement of joint mobility, the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score by independent evaluators were made. Results. A total of 23 stemless shoulder arthroplasty were implanted in 22 patients. Mean age was 57.8 years. Mean follow up was 22 months (8–45). Symptomatic primary gleno-humeral osteoarthritis was the main indication for implantation (83%). None of the patients experienced periprosthetic fractures, glenoid notching, and implant loosening/migration. Mean OSS (44 ± 6.0) and mean DASH score (11 ± 6.5). Mean operative time was (88 ± 16.0 min) and mean length of hospital stay (1.1 ± 0.82 day). Active shoulder motion improved by (mean): 30° (95% CI 10–45) external rotation, 67° (95% CI 30- 100) forward elevation and 54° (95% CI 35- 90) Abduction. Conclusion. The implantation of stemless shoulder prosthesis in our institution offered good clinical results manifested by improved range of motion and favourable patient reported outcome measures. Although long term follow up is warranted, early results appear promising in young patients with symptomatic gleno-humeral osteoarthritis

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty implants for the proximal humerus provide cementless metaphyseal prosthetic fixation. A near-perfect anatomic restoration of the proximal humeral articular surface is possible with this canal-sparing design—avoiding the risks associated with humeral stems and preserving bone for later revision. When compared with proximal humeral resurfacing, stemless arthroplasty avoids the potential technical errors that may lead to oversized implants, abnormal shift of the glenohumeral joint center of rotation, and excessive strain on the native rotator cuff. While canal-sparing stemless implants represent a new concept in shoulder arthroplasty without mid- and long-term results, the failures associated with resurfacing humeral arthroplasty have been documented in the literature. Unlike a stemless component, use of a resurfacing technique (and hence preservation of the humeral head) makes glenoid prosthetic implantation challenging and often impossible